# 

«3 

" 

^ 

CL 

•  ^ 

/^ 

«^ 

^ 

IE 

m"^ 

_Q. 

^ 

0) 

^ 

m 

.s    ^ 

CL 

S)     s 

o 

«» 

$ 

C 
< 

(U 

^' 

o 

3 

^    s 

^      rt 

^     ^ 

^ 

£ 

CO 

^ 

•5t 

^ 

-a 

<:i 

% 

0) 

§ 

^ 

CO 

OJ 

^ 

•^^ 

CL 

g 

V    ■               ^0 

<- 

-1-. 

fr                          ^ 

■•'  ■ ..  - 

"-*_-'■ 

/ 


>'; 


l(0O 


I  M  M  E  R  S  I  0  N  I  S  T  S 


THE   bible; 

OR, 

THE  BABEL  BUILDERS  CONFOUNDED, 

IN    AN    EXPOSITION    OF 

THE  ORIGIN,  DESIGN,  TACTICS,  AND  PROGRESS  OF 

THE  NEW  VERSION  ilOVEilENT  OF  CAilP- 

BELLITES  AND  OTHER  BAPTISTS. 

BY    THE       y 

REV.    N.   H.^^EE, 

OF     THE     LOUISVILLE     CONFERENCE. 

EDITED    BY    THOMAS    0.    SUMMERS,    D.  D. 


Nasljbillc,  %va\\.  : 
SOUTHERN  METHODIST  PUliLISKING  HOUSE 

18-30. 


PRINTED  BY  A.  A.  STITT, 
JIBTHODIST  PUBLISHING  HOUSE,  NASHVILIiB,  TENN. 


jTT^ 


PREFACE    BY    THE    EDITOR Ill 

CHAPTER    I. 
INTRODUCTION 9 

CHAPTER  11. 

THE    ORIGIN    OF  THE    MOVEMENT 13 

CHAPTER  III. 

THE    MAIN   DESIGN    OF    THE    MOVEMENT 35 

CHAPTER  IV. 

THE    MAIN   DESIGN,    CONTINUED 54 

CHAPTER  v. 

THE    TACTICS    OF    THE    MOVEMENT 87 

CHAPTER  VI. 

THE    TACTICS    OF    THE    MOVEMENT,    CONTINUED 108 

CHAPTER  VII. 

DISPARAGEMENT    OF    THE    COMMON    VERSION 123 

(iii) 


IV  CONTENTS. 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

THE     IMMERSIONISTS     HAVE     DONE    AND    ARE    DOING 

WHAT    THEY    CHAEGE    KING    JA3IES    WITH    DOING..    159 

CHAPTER  IX. 

AD    HOMINEM    ARGUMENT    OF   THE    REVISIONISTS 171 

CHAPTER  X. 

CHANGES    PROPOSED    IN    THE    COMMON    VERSION 208 

CHAPTER  XL 

THE    PORTION    OF    THE    REVISION    PUBLISHED 229 

CHAPTER  XII. 

CONCLUSION 240 


fe^^ 


^ufece  \i  tbc  t'Mtar, 


We  deeply  regret  the  necessity  whicli  exists  for  tlie 
publication  of  such  a  work  as  the  present  volume.  The 
exposure  of  Jesuitism,  whether  popish  or  Protestant,  is 
a  task  so  irksome  that  we  instinctively  shrink  from  its 
performance ;  but  when  it  is  needful  to  be  done,  he  who 
performs  it  in  a  candid,  charitable  spirit,  deserves  the 
gratitude  of  all  concerned.  We  think  the  author  of  the 
following  pages  has  tempered  unavoidable  severity  with 
the  meekness  of  wisdom;  and  that  no  one  can  justly 
complain  of  a  want  of  fairness  and  courtesy  in  the  mat- 
ter and  manner,  tone  and  temper,  of  his  production. 

The  "tactics"  of  the  immersionist  translators  ought 
to  be  exposed,  though  the  exposure  is  humiliating  to 
every  lover  of  the  Bible.  The  rampant  sectarianism 
which  is  at  the  head  and  front  of  the  movement  is  too 
palpable,  and,  as  Mr.  Lee  shows,  has  been  too  often  ad- 
mitted, to  be  denied  with  any  credit.     We  see,  indeed, 

1*  (V) 


VI  PREFACE   BY    THE    EDITOR. 

while  these  sheets  are  passing  through  the  press,  that 
some  of  the  leaders  in  this  schismatical  movement  are 
beginning  to  hesitate  as  they  approach  the  brink  of  the 
precipice :  they  are  afraid  to  take  the  leap,  and  well 
they  might  be !  What  if  the  masses  for  whose  benefit 
"immersion"  is  to  be  "printed  in  the  Bible,"  should 
learn  to  attach  the  idea  of  sprinkling  to  that  term, 
rather  than  that  of  dipping  to  the  mode  of  baptism! 
It  is  shrewdly  suggested  that  such  a  thing  as  this  would 
not  be  without  precedent.  And  truly  no  one  need  mar- 
vel at  this,  for  it  would  not  be  a  tithe  as  absurd  to  make 
immersion  mean  affusion  as  to  make  baptism  in  the  New 
Testament  mean  immersion. 

As  to  the  other  changes  proposed  in  the  New  Version, 
all  we  have  to  say  on  this  subject  is,  that  if  they  are 
amendments  we  do  not  want  them  in  our  standard  Bible, 
unless  put  there  by  competent  authority :  of  course,  we 
do  not  want  them  if  they  are  not  amendments,  but  mere 
alterations,  frequently  for  the  worse — as  are  many  of 
the  changes  that  have  come  under  our  notice. 

We  care  not  how  many  versions  and  commentaries 
are  made  by  learned  men,  provided  they  do  not  usurp 
the  place  of  our  old  English  Bible.  We  can  tolerate  an 
occasional  correction  of  the  authorized  text  in  the  coui'se 
of  a  sermon,  though  we  think  this  should  be  very  seldom 
attempted.     We  sometimes  hear  such  pulpit  criticisms 


PREFACE    BY    THE    EDITOR.  Vll 

of  the  version  of  the  forty-seven  translators  of  our  Eng- 
lish Vulgate  as  remind  us  of  the  anecdote  told  by  old 
Isaac  Walton,  in  his  Life  of  Bishop  Sanderson.  When 
Mr.  Sanderson  was  at  Lincoln  College,  Oxford,  under 
the  care  of  the  learned  Dr.  Kilbie,  one  of  "  King  James's 
translators,"  he  and  the  learned  Hebrician  made  a  tour 
into  Derbyshire,  and  being  at  church  on  a  Sunday,  heard 
a  young  preacher  declaim  against  the  then  late  transla- 
tion, somewhat,  it  would  seem,  in  the  spirit  of  the  im- 
mersionist  revisionists.  He  showed,  says  Walton, 
'*  three  reasons  why  a  particular  word  should  have  been 
otherwise  translated.  When  evening  prayer  was  ended, 
the  preacher  was  invited  to  the  doctor's  friend's  house, 
where,  after  some  conference,  the  doctor  told  him  he 
might  have  preached  more  useful  doctrine,  and  not  have 
filled  his  auditors'  ears  with  needless  exceptions  against 
the  late  translation ;  and  for  that  word  for  which  he 
offered  to  that  poor  congregation  three  reasons  why  it 
ought  to  have  been  translated  as  he  said,  he  and  others 
had  considered  all  three,  and  found  thirteen  more  con- 
siderable reasons  why  it  was  translated  aS  now  printed ; 
and  told  him,  if  his  friend,  then  attending  him,  should 
prove  guilty  of  such  indiscretion,  he  should  forfeit  his 
favoi",  —  to  which  Mr.  Sanderson  said,  he  hoped  he 
should  not;  and  the  preacher  was  so  ingenuous  as  to 
say,  he  would  not  justify  himself." 


Vlll  PREFACE   BY    THE    EDITOR. 

We  are  not  sanguine  enougli  to  expect  such  ingenu- 
OTisness  on  the  part  of  those  who  are  engaged  in  the 
present  movement,  as  a  blind  sectarianism  is  the  mo- 
tive by  which  they  are  influenced.  Nevertheless,  a  fair 
exposure  of  their  movements  and  methods  may  keep 
the  unsuspecting  from  an  entangling  alliance  with  them, 
if  it  should  not  be  otherwise  serviceable  to  the  interests 
of  truth  and  righteousness.  With  this  view  the  present 
little  book  was  written  by  the  author :  that  its  circula- 
tion will  be  productive  of  good  is  the  belief  of  those  who 
have  examined  it,  including 

Nashville,  Texn.,  March  8, 1866. 


Immtrsionists  arjiiinst  t|t  ^iik. 


CHAPTER    I. 

INTRODUCTION. 

The  manner  in  which  the  New  Version  move- 
ment has  been  advocated,  has  had,  as  I  conceive,  a 
tendency  to  lessen  the  confidence  of  the  public  mind 
in  the  Divine  origin  and  the  uncorrupted  preserv- 
ation of  the  Sacred  Scriptures.  And,  indeed,  this 
is  the  necessary  tendency  of  the  movement  itself. 
It  should  therefore  be  exposed  and  resisted  by 
every  lover  of  Divine  truth.  An  eminent  British 
statesman  has  said,  that  public  confidence  may  bo 
far  more  easily  destroyed  than  restored,  when 
once  affected.  A  brainless  fanatic  may  destroy 
in  an  hour  a  temple  which  required  ages,  and  in- 
calculable treasure,   with    the    direction    of    the 


10       IMMERSIONISTS   AGAINST    THE    BIBLE. 

highest  order  of  genius,  to  complete.  Let  the 
confidence  of  the  masses  of  the  people  in  the 
truth  of  the  Bible  be  once  destroyed,  and  what 
may  we  not  expect  ?  The  scenes  enacted  in 
France,  in  the  latter  part  of  the  last  century  and 
the  beginning  of  the  present,  may  be  roenacted ; 
or  the  state  of  things  which  has  existed  in  the 
greater  part  of  Europe,  and  especially  in  Ger- 
many, may  prevail  throughout  Christendom, — in 
which,  while  the  Bible  is  avowedly  received  as 
the  text-book  of  religion,  it  is  made  to  bow  down 
in  subordination  to  human  reason.  If,  as  the  ad- 
vocates of  this  movement  contend,  the  version  in 
common  use  is  sectarian,  and  not  to  be  trusted 
as  a  guide  to  truth  and  duty,  in  a  great  many 
cardinal  respects,  how  much  more  confidence  can 
they  expect  to  be  placed  in  their  proposed  ver- 
sion ?  And,  should  they  succeed  in  destroying 
confidence  in  King  James's  version,  how  will  they 
manage  to  secure  confidence  in  their  owu  ?  They 
will  not  be  able  to  do  so,  unless  they  ccui  demon- 
strate that  they  are  free  from  sectarian  hias;  and 
in  order  to  do  this,  they  must  demonstrate  that 


IMMERSIOXISTS    AGAINST    THE    BIBLE.        11 

they  are  infallihlc :  that  is^  under  the  influence 
of  Divine  inspiration.  Should  they  not  be  able 
to  do  this,  and  the  contingency  referred  to  should 
occur,  what  foundation  will  the  Church  have  for 
her  faith?  ^'If  the  foundations  be  destroyed, 
what  can  the  righteous  do  ?" 

Paine  and  Voltaire  have  scarcely  employed 
more  profanity  in  their  attacks  upon  the  sacred 
writings,  than  the  most  prominent  advocates 
of  this  scheme  have  used  in  reference  to  the 
version  in  common  use.  They  have  indulged  in 
low,  vulgar  abuse,  which  would  far  better  become 
the  very  lowest  injidel  club  than  an  assembly  of 
those  calling  themselves  Christians. 

Indeed,  they  have  made  some  of  the  very  same 
objections  to  our  translation  which  Paine  and 
others  of  the  lower  class  of  infidels  have  made ; 
and  one  avowed  object  of  the  movement  is  to 
endeavor  to  remove  all  ground  of  objection  to  the 
Holy  Scriptures  upon  the  part  of  infidels. 

And,  though  these  "nihblin(j  critics"  have 
generally  little  talent,  and  less  learning,  yet  they 
have  misled  many  of  the  unwary,  and  will,  if  not 


1::        IMMERSIONISTS    AGAINST   THE    BIBLE. 

cliecked,  do  much  harm  to  the  cause  of  truth. 
It  is  our  design,  in  these  pages,  to  stop  the 
mouths  of  these  gainsajers. 

One  thing  which  distinguishes  the  advocates 
of  the  New  Version  movement  is,  their  habitual 
(though  we  hope  unintentional)  suppression  and 
misrepresentation  of  facts.  They  are  endeavor- 
ing to  make  false  impressions  in  regard  to  the 
origin  of  the  movement,  and  in  regard  to  the 
main  object  had  in  view.  Mj  main  object  in  the 
following  pages  will  be  to  present  the  movement) 
in  its  true  light,  by  presenting  the  facts  in  con 
nection  with  its  origin  and  history.  And,  in  do- 
ing this,  I  shall  not  depend  upon  rumor,  but  I 
shall  present  extracts  from  authentic  and  reliable 
documents — principally  those  published  by  the 
American  and  Foreign  Bible  Society,  the  Ameri- 
can Bible  Union,  and  societies  coordinate  and 
subordinate  to  those. 

I  will  get  my  authority  mainly  from  the  men 
who  led  the  way  in  getting  up  the  movement, 
and  who  have  been  mainly  concerned  in  the  pro- 
secution of  it  from  the  beginning. 


IM3IERSI0XISTS   AGAINST    THE   BIBLE.        lo 


CHAPTER    II. 

THE    ORIGIN    OF    THE    MOVEMENT. 

A  GREAT  outcry  lias  been  made  against  the 
American  Bible  Society  by  the  advocates  of  the 
New  Version  movement.  It  is  charged  that  the 
Society  has  treated  imraersionists  with  great  in- 
justice, in  their  refusal  to  patronize  versions  of 
the  Holy  Scriptures  made  by  them,  while,  at  the 
same  time,  they  have  liberally  sustained,  by  their 
influence  and  appropriations  in  money,  versions 
made  by  other  denominations.  They  complain 
especially  of  the  action  of  the  Society  in  reference 
to  the  version  in  the  Burmese  language,  made  by 
Dr.  Judson,  which  was  the  immediate  occasion 
of  their  secession  from  the  Society,  and  the  form- 
ation of  the  American  and  Foreign  Bible  Society. 

That  the  reader  may  see  whether  there  be  any 
valid  ground  of  complaint  or  not,  I  make  the 
following  extract  from  the  account  given  of  this 
2 


14       IMMERSIONTSTS    AGAINST    THE    BIBLE. 

matter  by  the  American  Bible  Society.     (Bible 
Translations,  pp.  4,  5,  6.) 

'^In  July,  1835;  a  letter  was  received  through 
a  friend  in  Philadelphia,  from  the  Rev.  Wra.  H. 
Pearce,  an  English  Baptist  missionary  at  Bengal, 
in  India.  In  this  letter  information  was  given 
that  the  writer,  together  with  the  Rev.  Mr. 
Yates,  a  brother  missionary,  had  prepared  a  new 
version  of  the  Bengalee  Scriptures,  which  they 
were  desirous  of  having  published.  With  Christ- 
ian frankness  it  was  stated,  that  in  this  version 
they  had  translated  the  Grreek  terms  hcq)tizo  and 
haptlsma  by  words  which  sigmij  mimerse  and  im- 
mersion, and  that  the  Bible  Society  at  Calcutta 
had,  on  this  account,  refused  to  patronize  it. 
Had  this  letter  contained  nothing  further,  the 
Board  could  easily  have  dismissed  the  whole  mat- 
ter, as  they  had  no  responsibilities  connected  with 
that  version.  But  it  was  further  stated  that  this 
new  Bengalee  translation  was  made  on  the  same 
principles  as  those  which  obtained  in  the  Bur- 
mese translation,  which  it  was  understood  the 
American  Bible  Society  patronized.     Here  was  a 


IMMERSIONISTS  AGAINST   THE   BIBLE.       15 

new  and  startling  announcement.  The  Board  had 
indeed  granted,  at  different  times,  many  thousand 
dollars  towards  the  publication  of  this  Burmese 
version,  but  without  information  from  any  quarter, 
or  the  least  suspicion  that  it  was  of  the  character 
described  by  Mr.  Pearce.  They  knew  the  Rev. 
Dr.  Judson,  the  translator,  to  be  a  learned  and 
pious  man,  and  therefore  felt  a  confidence  that  he 
had  made  what  they  considered  a  faithful  ver- 
sion; i.  e.,  one  which  conveyed  the  inspired 
meaning — the  only  point  to  which  they  had 
thought  of  directing  attention — presuming  every 
friend  of  the  Bible  Society  to  be  aware  that  its 
Board  could  not  appropriate  moneys  for  any  new 
version  of  a  marked  denominational  character. 
^'  On  inquiring  of  the  Bev.  S.  H.  Cone,  (one  of 
the  Standing  Committee  on  Distribution,)  who  had 
repeatedly  solicited  funds  for  the  Burmese  ver- 
sion, whether  that  version  was  prepared  as  de- 
scribed by  Mr.  Pearce,  he,  for  the  first  time, 
informed  them  that  such  was  the  fact.  Although 
this  letter  had  been  once  before  the  Committee 
on  Distribution,   the  Board,   at   its  meeting   in 


16       IMMERSIONISTS    AGAINST    THE    BIBLE- 

August,  referred  it  to  tlie  same  committee  again 
for  further  consideration.  The  committee,  after 
frequent  meetings,  were  unable  to  recommend 
any  course  which  would  satisfy  all  concerned. 
In  order  to  give  this  subject  the  most  full  and 
impartial  investigation,  the  Board  now  appointed 
a  special  committee  of  seven,  namely  :  a  Presby- 
terian, an  Episcopalian,  a  Baptist,  a  Methodist,  a 
Moravian,  one  of  the  Beformed  Dutch  Church, 
and  one  from  the  Society  of  Friends.  After  re- 
peated meetings  of  this  select  committee,  and 
much  inquiry,  they  brought  in  a  report  with  sun- 
dry resolutions.  The  Bev.  S.  H.  Cone,  one  of  the 
number,  also  presented  a  minority  report.  The 
whole  subject  was  now  postponed  for  a  further 
and  careful  consideration.  The  managers  were 
not  yet  disposed  to  adopt  the  resolutions  sub- 
mitted, as  they  hoped,  by  a  prudent  delay,  for  the 
adjustment  of  the  difficulty  which  had  arisen,  in 
a  way  satisfactory  to  all  who  were  interested, 

'^Before  the  next  meeting  of  the  Board,  in  Sep- 
tember, several  letters  were  received  from  Baptist 
clergymen,  in  whose  judgment  they  had  great 


IMMERSIONISTS    AGAINST   THE   BIBLE.        17 

regard,  expressing  the  hope  that  no  hasty  mea- 
sures would  be  adopted,  and  suggesting  some 
changes  and,  additions  in  relation  to  the  pending 
resolutions,  which  they  had  seen  in  a  Baptist 
papor. 

^' These  letters  were  laid  before  the  Board,  and 
the  proposed  changes  were  made.  After  frequent 
postponements  and  much  deliberation,  (more,  pro- 
bably, than  they  ever  before  bestowed  on  any  one 
topic,)  at  a  special  meeting  in  February,  1836, 
they  adopted  the  following  preamble  and  resolu- 
tions— resolutions  which  had  been  prepared,  or 
modified,  and  approved  of  by  some  of  the  most 
intelligent  and  worthy  Baptist  clergymen  in 
America : 

"  By  the  Constitution  of  the  American  Bible  So- 
ciety, its  managers  are,  in  the  circulating  of  the 
Holy  Scriptures,  restricted  to  such  copies  as  are 
^without  note  or  comment,'  and,  in  the  English 
language,  to  '■  the  version  in  common  use.'  The 
design  of  these  restrictions  clearly  seems  to  have 
been  to  simplify  and  mark  out  the  duties  of  the 
Society,  so  that  all  religious  denominations  of 
2* 


18       IMMERSIONISTS   AGAINST    THE   BIBLE. 

which  it  is  composed  might  harmoniously  unite 
in  performing  these  duties. 

"As  the  managers  are  now  called  to  aid  exten- 
sively in  circulating  the  Sacred  Scriptures  in  all 
languages  other  than  the  English,  they  deem  it 
their  duty,  in  conformity  with  the  obvious  spirit 
of  their  compact,  to  adopt  the  following  resolu- 
tions as  the  rule  of  their  conduct  in  making  ap- 
propriations for  the  circulation  of  the  Scriptures 
,in  'a\\  foreign  tongues. 

'■^Resolved,  That  in  appropriating  money  for  the 
translating,  printing,  or  distributing  of  the  Sacred 
Scriptures  in  foreign  languages,  the  managers  feel 
at  liberty  to  encourage  only  such  versions  as  con- 
form in  the  principles  of  their  translation  to  the 
common  English  version,  at  least  so  far  as  that 
all  the  religious  denominations  represented  in  this 
Society  can  consistently  use  and  circulate  said 
versions  in  their  several  schools  and  communi- 
ties. 

^^  Resolved,  That  a  copy  of  the  above  preamble 
and  resolutions  be  sent  to  each  of  the  Missionary 
Boards  accustomed  to  receive  pecuniary  aid  from 


IMMERSIONISTS    AGAINST   THE    BIBLE.       19 

this  Society,  with  a  request  that  the  saDie  may  he 
transmitted  to  their  respective  mission  stations 
where  the  Scriptures  are  in  process  of  transhition; 
and  also,  that  the  said  several  Missionary  Boards 
he  informed  that  their  applications  for  aid  be  ac- 
companied with  a  declaration  that  the  versions 
which  they  propose  to  circulate  are  executed 
in  accordance  with  the  above  resolutions.'^ 

Now,  what  ground  is  there  for  the  complaint 
of  injustice,  if  the  above  be  a  true  account  ?  And 
no  one  has  dared  to  say,  as  far  as  I  know,  that  it 
is  not  a  correct  account. 

In  what  light  does  Dr.  Cone,  who  had  repeat- 
edly solicited  funds  for  the  Burmese  version,  and 
others  connected  with  that  enterprise,  appear  ? 
Did  they  not  know  that  it  was  being  made  on  im- 
mersionist  principles  ?  And  were  they  not  aware 
that  the  grant  of  pecuniary  aid  was  in  contraven- 
tion of  the  condition  upon  which  the  Society  was 
originally  organized ;  as  also  of  the  spirit  of  the 
constitution  of  the  Society  ?  Yet  the  matter  was 
kept  a  profound  secret.  The  managers  say  that 
they  had  been   ^^  without  any  information  from 


20       IMMERSIONISTS   AGAINST    THE   BIBLE. 

any  quarter,  or  the  least  suspicion  that  it  was  of 
the  character  described  by  Mr.  Pearce/'  till  they 
were  informed  by  that  gentleman  in  July,  1885. 
And  it  seems  that  Mr.  Pearce  made  this  dis- 
closure incidentally.  The  Calcutta  Bible  Society 
having  refused  to  patronize  the  translation  made  by 
himself  and  Mr.  Yates  into  the  Ben<2:alee  lamruao-e, 
he  was  seeking  aid  from  the  American  Bible  So- 
ciety, and,  in  order  to  succeed  in  his  suit,  he  ad- 
duced the  fact  that  they  were  already  patronizing 
the  Burmese  version,  which  was  made  upon  strictly 
immersionist  principles.  Thus,  incidentally,  was 
''  the  cat  let  out  of  the  wallet.'^  And  what 
ground  for  the  loud  complaint  of  injustice  in  the 
final  action  of  the  Society  in  this  case  ?  The  So- 
ciety had  ample  ground  of  complaint  against  Dr. 
Cone  and  others,  who  were  in  the  secret  in  regard 
to  the  character  of  the  Burmese  version,  and 
who  successfully  solicited  funds  in  aid  of  it,  to 
the  amount  of  "  many  thousand  dollars."  The  So- 
ciety might  in  justice,  in  conformity  with  the  spirit 
and  letter  of  the  constitution,  have  demanded  the 
refunding  of  these  "many  thousand  dollars.'' 


IMMERSIONISTS   AGAINST    THE   BIBLE.       21 

The  adoption  of  some  version  whicli  could  be 
conscientiously  used  by  all  tbe  denominations 
composing  the  Society,  was  a  condition  indispens- 
able to  its  original  organization.  And,  had  the 
Board  of  Managers  continued  to  patronize  a  ver- 
sion known  to  be  strictly  denominational  in  its 
character,  the  Society  would  have  been  annihilated 
in  a  very  short  time. 

Although  it  could  be  proved  that  the  Society 
erred  in  selecting  the  version  in  common  use  as 
their  standard,  (and  this  we  think  cannot  be  done,) 
yet  there  is  no  ground  to  complain  of  the  course 
they  pursued  in  this  case.  And  yet,  strange  to 
say,  they  complain,  and  make  very  serious  charges 
against  the  Society,  which  it  may  be  proper  to 
notice  briefly. 

It  is  objected  that  the  Society  have  changed 
their  policy — objecting  to  and  withholding  their 
aid  from,  versions  of  such  a  character  as  they  once 
patronized  without  hesitation.  The  reply  of  the 
Board  of  Managers  to  this  is  as  follows  :  "■  That 
they  never,  in  a  single  case,  granted  aid  to  a  ver- 


22       IMMERSIONISTS   AGAINST   THE   BIBLE. 

sion  which  they  knew  at  the  time  to  be  of  such  a 
character  that  only  a  part  of  their  associates  could 
consistently  use  it.  Taking  it  for  granted  that 
none  would  ask  them  to  aid  denominational  ver- 
sions, they  now  find  that  in  two  instances  they 
have  aided  such,  though  in  honest  ignorance.  It 
appears  that  a  small  edition  of  an  Indian  Gospel 
was  once  printed  by  them,  where  haptiw  was 
translated  by  a  word  which  signifies  to  sprinMe  or 
pour ;  and  that  one  version  in  India  has  been 
aided  where  the  same  Greek  word  has  been  tran- 
slated by  a  term  signifying  immerse.  Had  the 
peculiarity  of  these  translations  been  known  at 
the  time,  they  would  by  no  means  have  been  en- 
couraged.'^ 

It  is  charged  again  that  the  Society  has  acted 
with  partiality,  by  allowing  other  denominations 
to  make  such  foreign  versions  as  they  choose, 
while  Baptists  have  not  this  privilege.  The  Board 
of  Managers  reply :  "  This  charge  can  have  no 
foundation,  unless  other  denominations  choose  to 
make  versions  of  such  a  character  that  all  the 


IMMERSIONISTS   AGAINST   THE   BIBLE.       23 

members  of  the  Bible  Society  can  use  them,  while 
those  who  complain  make  such  versions  as  their 
denomination  alone  can  consistently  use." 

It  is  alleged  again,  that  the  managers  have 
laid  down  such  rules  in  regard  to  versions, 
as  Baptist  translators  cannot  conscientiously 
follow. 

They  reply,  "  That  they  lay  down  no  rules  which 
they  do  not  consider  as  enjoined  on  them  by  the 
conditions  of  their  union,  by  the  framers  of  the 
Society.  If  these  rules  bear  with  undue  press- 
ure on  any  portion  of  the  compact,  it  is  for 
those  who  appoint  the  Board,  and  who  have  con- 
trol of  the  constitution,  to  alter  that  instrument 
so  that  men  of  every  creed  and  sentiment  may 
prepare  such  foreign  versions  as  they  please,  with 
the  expectation  they  tcill  he  puhlished  out  of  the 
common  Bible  fundi  At  present  such  license 
would  be  deemed  a  violation  of  what  the  consti- 
tution requires. '^ 

The  managers  are  charged  with  the  inconsistency 
of  patronizing  German  and  Dutch  Bibles,  where 


24       IMMERSIONISTS    AGAINST    THE    BIBLE. 

haptizo  is  translated  by  words  which  signify  im- 
merse,  and  yet  withholding  aid  from  the  Bengalee 
and  Burmese  Bibles  translated  in  the  same  way. 

The  reply  is,  ''  That  the  German  and  Dutch 
are  ancient '  received  versions/  such  as  the  found- 
ers of  the  Society  promised  to  patronize.  In  the 
next  place,  the  translated  words  alluded  to,  though 
they  once  signified  immerse,  have  (like  many 
words  in  the  English  Bible)  lost  their  first  mean- 
ings and  are  now  of  as  general  import  as  the  Eng- 
lish word  baptize.  They  are  versions  which  both 
Baptists  and  Pedobaptists  can  and  do  use  con- 
tinually without  objection.  Should  the  versions 
referred  to  in  India,  as  they  are  in  the  main  good, 
undergo  a  similar  change  as  to  the  import  of  a  few 
words,  so  that  diflferent  denominations  can  use 
them,  the  managers  will  feel  no  scruple  in  grant- 
ing them  patronage." 

Another  grave  charge  made  against  the  So- 
ciety is,  that  it  has  received  a  large  amount  of 
money  from  Baptists,  particularly  that  it  has  re- 
ceived forty  or  fifty  thousand  dollars  in  the  way 


IMMERSIONISTS    AGAINST    THE   BIBLE.       2t) 

of  legacies_,  while  it  has  made  to  the  denomination, 
as  such,  but  very  partial  appropriations,  and  now 
refuses  to  refund  what  is  still  dae. 

The  reply  of  the  managers  to  this  is,  ^'  That 
while  a  part,  perhaps  a  large  part  of  the  denomi- 
nation who  aid  the  Bible  cause  in  any  form  have 
seceded  from  the  American  Bible  Society,  and 
formed  one  exclusively  under  denominational  con- 
trol, (its  managers  being  necessarily  Baptists,)  yet 
a  highly  respected  and  valuable  portion  are  still 
coadjutors  with  the  national  institution."  ''  It 
would  be  improper,  then,  by  returning  Baptist 
funds,  even  if  the  alleged  amount  were  correct,  to 
treat  the  denomination  as  if  it  were  no  lousjer  a 
part  of  the  Bible  compact. 

"  But  the  charge  as  to  the  amount  is  not  correct. 
The  aggregate  of  legacies  received  from  Baptists, 
so  far  as  known  to  the  Board,  is  no  more  than 
$18,000. 

"And  how  was  this  amount  expended  ?  In  pre- 
paring and  circulating  English,  German,  and 
French  Bibles  for  the  good  of  our  own  common 
country;  and  a  large  debt  remained  after  it  was 


26       IMMERSIONISTS   AGAINST   THE   BIBLE. 

expended.  No  portion  went  to  aid  the  missions 
of  other  denominations  in  preparing  the  Scrip- 
tures in  any  form.  It  cannot  be  asked,  then,  that 
these  funds  should  be  paid  back  to  the  com- 
plainants. 

"  It  appears,  on  examining  the  Society's  books, 
that  while  no  more  than  SI 8,000  has  been  re- 
ceived from  Baptist  legacies,  and  that  this  was  all 
expended  at  home  for  a  common  object,  the  Bap- 
tist Foreign  Mission  Society  was  furnished,  be- 
tween the  years  1831  and  1838,  with  no  less  than 
$27,000  for  the  exclusive  use  of  that  denomina- 
tion in  preparing  and  circulating  the  Scriptures 
in  France,  Germany,  Bengal,  and  Burmah.  In 
addition  to  these  grants  of  money,  the  managers 
made  numerous  donations  of  English  and  other 
Scriptures,  for  the  exclusive  use  of  Baptist  mis- 
sions. During  the  years  1838  and  1839,  Messrs. 
Paste  and  Love,  Baptist  missionaries  in  Greece, 
were  furnished  by  the  Society's  agent  in  the 
Levant  (and  with  great  pleasure)  with  no  less 
than  12,933  portions  of  Scripture,  amounting  in 
value  to  some  $5000.     It  appears,  then,  that  no 


IMMERSIONISTS    AGAINST    THE    BIBLE.        2/ 

less  than  830^000  in  money  and  books  have  been 
furnished  by  the  Board  to  aid  Baptist  mission- 
aries in  circulating  the  Scriptures,  while  little 
more  than  half  of  that  sum  has  been  received 
from  Baptist  legacies;  and  this  was  received 
under  such  circumstances  as  to  pay  no  part  of 
those  large  grants. 

"  But  it  is  said  that  although  the  $40,000  or 
$50,000  of  legacies  spoken  of  as  furnished  to 
the  Society  may  not  as  yet  be  actually  paid  over, 
still  that  sum  will  be  paid  from  the  residuum  of  the 
estate  of  3Ir.  3Iarsh,  according  to  the  provisions 
of  his  will.  The  American  Bible  Society,  it  is 
true,  is  one  of  the  residuary  legatees  of  said 
estate.  How  far  there  is  a  prospect  of  any 
speedy  avails  from  this  quarter  will  be  seen  after 
reading  the  following  letter  from  the  executor  : 

'"Hackkxsack,  Jan.  18th,  1840. 

" '  DEx\r  Sir  : — In  reply  to  your  letter  of  the 
15th  inst.,  respecting  information  of  the  present 
condition  of  the  legacy  left  by  the  late  Mr.  Marsh 
to  the  American  Bible  Society,  I  have  to  state. 


28       IMMERSIONISTS    AGAINST    THE   BIBLE. 

that  by  the  will  of  Mr.  Marsh  the  Societyj  in 
addition  to  the  legacy  of  $10,000  which  has 
been  paid,  are  residuary  legatees  in  common  with 
the  grandchildren,  and  their  children,  of  the 
eight  uncles  of  the  testator, —  the  Society  to 
receive  one-third,  the  aforesaid  children  the  other 
two-thirds.  These  residuary  legatees  are  very 
numerous,  and  scattered  throughout  England. 
We  have  ascertained  about  one  hundred;  and 
from  information  received,  there  are,  at  least,  as 
many  more,  whose  names  we  have  not  been  able 
to  ascertain.  Proceedings  have  been  instituted 
in  the  Court  of  Chancery  to  have  the  estate 
settled,  but  from  various  causes  it  has  not  been 
brought  to  a  close ;  and  when  it  will  be  it  is  im- 
possible for  me  to  say.  I  am  advised  that  I  can- 
not safely  pay  any  of  the  residuary  legatees  with- 
out having  them  all  brought  in  some  way  into 
court,  so  as  to  be  bound  by  a  decree,  in  order  to 
a  final  settlement  of  the  estate. 

"  'Very  respectfully  yours, 

"  'James  Hague.' 

"  It  is  obvious  that  a  long  pc»iod  must  intervene 


IMMERSIONISTS    AGAINST    THE    BIBLE.        29 

before  this  residuum  (if  it  ever  come)  will  reach 
the  treasury.  Should  it  ere  long  be  received,  it 
can  with  every  propriety  be  employed,  as  was  the 
$10,000  already  realized  from  the  same  estate, 
in  furnishing  English,  French,  and  German 
Bibles  to  the  mixed  population  of  our  own 
country. 

'^  But  it  is  contended  that  in  addition  to  the 
legacies  in  question,  a  large  amount  has  been 
furnished  by  Baptists  in  the  way  of  life-director- 
ships, life-memberships,  etc.  Some  have  placed 
the  amount  of  payments  of  this  kind  at  $40,000 
or  850,000,  equal  to  that  of  the  legacies  received 
and  prospective. 

^^Xow,  while  the  managers  are  greatlj^  averse  to 
comparisons  as  to  contributions  of  different  de- 
nominations, they  have  been  led,  by  the  repeated 
charges  referred  to,  to  examine  with  some  care 
as  to  their  accuracy.  They  find,  in  the  first  place, 
in  relation  to  life-directors,  that  out  of  a  list  of 
more  than  four  hundred  belonging  to  the  Society, 
only  thirteen  are  of  the  Baptist  denomination.  Of 
these  thirteen,  two  were  constituted  directors  on 
3* 


30       IMMERSIONISTS   AGAINST   THE   BIBLE. 

account  of  having  been  members  of  the  Conven- 
tion which  formed  the  Society.  Four  others 
were  made  directors  in  consequence  of  having 
been  executors  where  legacies  were  left  it.  Two 
others  were  made  directors  by  contributions 
furnished  by  men  of  other  denominations;  and 
one  of  the  remainder  is  still  a  friend  of  the 
American  Bible  Society.  It  does  not  appear, 
then,  that  there  are,  in  any  view  of  the  matter, 
more  than  the  value  of  four  directorships  to  be 
returned. 

"  In  relation  to  life-members,  it  is  not  easy  to 
determine  the  precise  number  belonging  to  the 
Baptist  persuasion.  In  looking  over  a  list  of 
more  than  four  thousand  names,  not  more  than 
about  one  hundred  can  be  thus  identified ;  while 
several  of  these  were  constituted  members  by 
those  of  other  creeds,  and  several  more  are  still 
friendly  to  the  Society.  But,  allowing  there 
were  one  hundred  and  fifty  life-members,  each  of 
whom  has  contributed  thirty  dollars,  the  total 
would  amount  to  no  more  than  $4,500,  to  be 
added  to  the  $000  for  life-directorships. 


IMMERSIONISTS    AGAINST    THE    BIBLE.        31 

^^  The  Board  have  next  looked  over  the  names 
of  the  one  hundred  and  twenty  citizens  in  New 
York  who  aided  in  the  erection  of  the  Society's 
house,  at  an  expense  of  $22,000.  While  they 
find  subscriptions  from  almost  every  other  denomi- 
nation, they  find  but  one  (Dr.  Luke  Barker's) 
belonging  to  that  from  which  these  charges  now 
come.  This  contribution  was  thirty  dollars,  to  be 
added  to  the  $5,100  above  named.  They  look, 
then,  at  donations  made  specifically  to  aid  distri- 
butions in  Burmah.  Presuming  these  to  have 
been  made  by  Baptists,  they  find  them  to  amount 
in  all  to  less  than  $1000.  As  to  contiibutions 
made  through  auxiliaries,  there  are  no  means  for 
determining  definitely  what  amount  has  been 
thus  received.  From  the  large  auxiliaries  in 
New  England,  New  York,  and  a  few  at  the 
South,  whence  most  of  the  free  donations  come, 
it  is  clear  to  the  Board,  from  inquiry  and  state- 
ments of  agents,  that  a  small  amount,  compcira- 
tively,  (as  in  the  case  of  life-directorships,  life- 
memberships,  and  the  buikling-fund,)  has    ever 


82       IMMERSIONISTS   AGAINST   THE   BIBLE. 

been  furnished  by  Baptists,  particularly  by  those 
■\7ho  have  seceded. 

'^  In  the  newly-settled  States,  those  of  that  de- 
Domiiiation  have  united  with  others  in  procuring 
and  distributing  Bibles  in  their  respective  counties. 
But  here  the  value  was  returned  in  books,  and, 
in  many  instances,  large  gratuitous  supplies  in 
addition.  Not  a  few  of  their  number  continue 
still  to  aid  in  these  domestic  distributions,  both 
to  the  gratification  of  the  auxiliaries  and  the 
parent  Society.  Funds  thus  paid  in  for  books 
add  nothing  to  the  capital  of  the  institution,  and 
can  furnish  no  claim  for  a  demand  on  those 
which  come  as  free  donations.  While,  then,  it 
cannot  be  determined  with  minute  accuracy  what 
amount  of  money  has  been  furnished  by  Baptists, 
gratuitously,  or  so  that  it  can  be  used  by  other 
denominations,  the  Board  have  no  belief  that  it 
can  surpass  or  equal  the  more  than  $30,000  which 
they  as  a  sect  have  received  from  the  iustitu- 
tion.  Aside  from  the  $18,000  of  legacies,  (used 
at  home,  and  not  to  be  counted,)  there  is  no  evi- 


IMMERSIONISTS   AGAINST    THE    BIBLE.        33 

dence  of  their  having  contributed  to  the  treasury 
one  half  the  amount  which  they  have  received 
from  it.  Under  such  circumstances,  the  man- 
agers cannot,  of  course,  feel  the  obligation  of 
making  further  returns  to  those  who  have  chosen 
to  leave  the  Society,  and  to  assert  in  so  many 
ways  its  wrong-doing." — Bihle  Translations,  pp. 
7-14. 

From  the  foregoing  exhibition  of  facts,  it 
would  seem  strange  indeed  that  the  immersionists 
should  complain  of  the  injustice  with  which  the}' 
have  been  treated  by  the  American  Bible  Society. 
With  what  face  can  they  complain  that  they  were 
not  permitted  to  draw  from  the  fund  contributed 
mainly  by  Pedobaptist  denominations,  to  publish 
versions  of  the  Sacred  Scriptures  which  were 
made  so  as  to  express  their  peculiar,  strange,  and 
false  views  of  baptism?  —  that  the  American 
Bible  Society  were  unwilling  to  take  the  money 
contributed  to  publish  and  circulate  such  versions 
of  the  Holy  Scriptures  as  they  could  all  consci- 
entiously use,  to  publish  and  circulate  their  pecu- 
liar dogma   of    "  c?^}^,   and   nothing    hut  dij[)T' 


34       IMMERSIONISTS   AGAINST   THE   BIBLE. 

They  take  it  exceedingly  liard^  indeed,  that  they 
have  to  print  at  their  own  expense  versions 
intended  specially  to  sustain  their  peculiar  notion 
about  baptism.  It  would  seem  but  reasonable 
that,  if  they  are  determined  to  take  the  responsi- 
bility of  altering  the  word  of  God  for  their  own 
accommodation,  they  should  be  willing  to  bear 
the  expenses  themselves,  and  not  wish  to  involve 
others  in  the  consequences  of  their  temerity. 


IMMERSIONISTS   AGAINST   THE   BIBLE.       oO 


CHAPTER    III. 

THE    3IAIN    DESIGN    OF    THE    MOVEMENT. 

This,  we  will  prove,  is  the  substitution  of  im- 
merse and  its  cognates  for  baptize  and  its  cog- 
nates— at  least,  so  far  as  the  word  relates  to  the 
ordinance  of  baptism.  It  may  be  proper,  how- 
ever, before  we  proceed  to  the  proofs,  to  place 
the  issue  involved  distinctly  and  clearly  before 
the  mind  of  the  reader,  that  he  may  be  the  better 
prepared  to  appreciate  the  argument. 

The  question  to  be  settled  is  not  whether  there 
are  errors  in  the  commonly  received  version  of  the 
Bible.  We  admit  this;  yet  we  deny  that  they 
involve  any  doctrine  or  precept  of  Christianity. 
Neither  is  it  the  question,  whether  there  ought  to 
be  a  new  version  of  the  Holy  Scriptures.  And  yet 
we  are  prepared  to  show,  from  the  best  authority, 
that  there  is  no  necessity  for  it. 


86       IMMERSIONISTS   AGAINST   THE   BIBLE. 

The  real  questicfc  is  this:  Ought  there  to  he 
such  a  version  of  the  Holy  Scriptures  as  the  ad- 
vocates of  this  movement  cojitemplate,  i.  e.,  a 
strict!?/  sectarian  one — one  in  which  immerse  and 
its  cognates  shall  he  siihstitnted  for  haptize  and  its 
cognates?  This  IS  THE  QUESTION.  Here  is  the 
real  issue.  It  is  important  that  the  reader  should 
keep  his  mind  steadily  fixed  on  this  point.  The 
New  Version  advocates  have  endeavored,  and  are 
endeavoring,  both  in  public  addresses  before  the 
people,  and  in  their  publications,  to  mislead  other 
denominations,  and  the  public  as  well  as  their 
own  people,  in  regard  to  the  main  design  of  the 
movement.  They  are  afraid  to  risk  it  on  its  own 
merits.  And  the  policy  is  to  avoid  public  odium. 
as  far  as  possible,  in  order  that  they  may  the  more 
certainly  secure  the  means  of  prosecuting  the 
enterprise ;  for  it  is  an  expensive  business.  And 
no  doubt  they  design  also  to  keep  the  real  cha- 
racter of  the  movement  out  of  view  as  long  as 
possible,  that  they  may  have  time  to  drill  their 
own  people  into  an  acceptance  of  the  denomina- 
tional  version,  when    it   appears.      They    dwell 


IMMERSIONISTS  AGAINST    THE    BIBLE.       6i 

largely  upon  the  thousands  of  errors  which  they 
say  are  in  King  James's  translation — the  removal 
of  which  they  urge  is  the  object  of  the  move- 
ment. They  disclaim  the  sectarian  character  of 
the  movement  in  these  "Buncombe"  productions, 
and  assert  that  nearly  all  the  Protestant  denomi- 
nations are  united  in  it — that  a  large  proportion 
of  the  translators  are  Pedobaptists,  etc.  Not- 
withstanding all  this  manoeuvering,  I  will  show 
that  the  movement,  from  its  incipiency,  has  been 
strictly  sectarian — that  it  was  begun,  and  has 
been  and  is  still  prosecuted,  for  the  purpose, 
mainli/,  of  subserving  sectarian  views  and  in- 
terests— that  it  is  designed  to  produce  a  strictly 
immersionist  version — baptize  and  its  cognates 
being  rejected,  and  immerse  and  its  cognates  be- 
ing substituted.  And  I  will  make  this  showing 
not  from  rumor,  but  mainly  from  official  docu- 
ments of  the  associations  concerned  in  the  move- 
ment. 

The  history  of  the  movement  shows  this  to 
have  been  the  predominant  idea. 

In  the  preface  to  Professor  Stuart's  work  on 
4 


t>5       IMMERSIONISTS   AGAINST    THE   BIBLE. 

Baptism,  we  learn  that  five  Baptist  missionaries, 
viz.,  Bennett,  Jones,  Judson,  Kincaid,  and 
Wade,  in  a  letter,  dated  Maulmain  and  Kangoon, 
May,  1832,  inquired  of  Professor  Stuart :  ''Shall 
we  transfer  the  Greek  word  paTTrl^o)  into  the 
Burmese  language,  when  it  relates  to  the  ordi- 
nance of  baptism,  or  translate  it  by  a  word  sig- 
nificant of  immersion,  or  by  a  word  of  the  same 
import  ?"  He  answered  this  inquiry,  and  advised 
them  not  to  translate  baptizo  by  immerse^  or  any 
other  mere  modal  term ;  but  to  transfer  it  into- 
the  heathen  tongues  as  it  had  been  done  into  the 
Latin,  French,  English,  etc. ;  and  his  book  on 
Baptism  was  written  to  sustain  the  correctness 
of  this  advice.  These  missionaries,  however, 
refused  to  follow  this  advice ;  and  Dr.  Judson,  as 
we  have  already  seen,  proceeded  to  use  a  term  in 
the  Burmese  version  which  signifies  exclusively 
to  immerse.  We  see,  then,  that  the  manner  in 
which  jSanrt^G)  should  be  translated  was  a  sub- 
ject of  chief  interest  before  the  enterprise  was 
entered  upon.  The  determination  to  translate  it 
by  a   word    signifying   immerse   was    no    doubt 


IMMERSIONISTS   AGAINST   THE   BIBLE.       39 

formed  before  they  consulted  Professor  Stuart. 
Nothing  he  could  have  said  would  in  the  least 
have  changed  their  purpose.  They  were  not, 
indeed,  asking  for  light ;  but  they  hoped  to  se- 
cure the  influence  of  Professor  S.,  preeminently 
distinguished  for  his  classical  and  biblical  learn- 
ing, in  favor  of  the  enterprise.  They  remind  me 
of  the  case  of  a  preacher,  who,  in  a  very  serious 
tone,  consulted  a  clerical  brother  in  regard  to  his 
marriage  with  a  certain  lady.  The  brother  con- 
sulted wished  to  know  how  far  the  case  had 
progressed.  ''0,"  said  he,  ^^we  are  engaged.'* 
^^Weiy  said  the  other,  "it  is  too  late  to  consult 
me  now :  why  did  you  not  consult  me  sooner  ?" 
"0,"  said  the  inquirer,  ''I  was  afraid  some  one 
else  would  get  her.'' 

The  desire  to  get  immerse  in  the  place  of  bap- 
tize is  clearly  seen  from  this  incident  to  have  been 
at  the  very  bottom  of  the  whole  movement.  This 
desire  has  led  the  way  in  every  step  that  has  been 
taken  from  the  beginning.  Immerse  is  the 
'^hcad  and  front''  of  the  whole  movement.  It 
is  the  central  idea  round  which  every  thing  else 


40       IMMERSIONISTS    AGAINST    THE    BIBLE. 

resolves,  and  to  which  every  thing  else  is  subor- 
dinate. This  clearly  appears  in  the  further  his- 
tory of  the  movement. 

Why  did  the  Calcutta  Bible  Society  refuse  to 
patronize  the  version  in  the  Bengalee  language 
made  by  the  Bev.  Messrs.  Pearce  and  Yates  ?  Why, 
exclusively  on  the  ground  that  it  was  an  immcr- 
sionist  version.  Why  did  the  xYmerican  Bible 
Society  refuse  to  patronize  this  version  ?  and  why 
did  they  resolve  to  cease  patronizing  the  Bur- 
mese version  made  by  Dr.  Judson,  when  they 
learned,  through  the  Rev.  Mr.  Pearce,  the  true  cha- 
racter of  it?  Why,  simply  because  it  was  a  sec- 
tarian version,  and  they  could  not  patronize  it  in 
accordance  with  the  constitution.  Why  did  the 
Baptists  take  exception  to  the  action  of  the  Board 
of  Managers,  and,  with  Dr.  Cone  at  their  head, 
secede  from  the  Society,  and  form  one  of  their 
own  ?  It  was  on  account  of  their  devotion  to  the 
principle  of  substituting  immerse  for  haptize.  Let 
the  Board  of  Managers  of  their  own  Society  tell 
us  :  "  Since  the  die  is  cast,  and  the  Bible  socie- 
ties of  Asia,  Europe,  and  America  have  united 


IMMERSIONISTS   AGAINST    THE    BIBLE.        41 

in  the  determination  neither  to  sanction  nor 
patronize  any  version  in  which  haptizo  is  made  to 
signify  immerse^  what  have  the  Baptists  to  do 
but  to  come  up  to  the  help  of  the  Lord,  even  to 
the  help  of  the  Lord  against  the  mighty?" — Quar. 
Pap.,  p.  4. 

Let  Dr.  Cone  say  why  the  Baptists  seceded 
from  the  American  Bible  Society,  and  why  they 
organized  the  American  and  Foreign  Bible  So- 
ciety, in  his  speech  at  the  first  anniversary  of  the 
American  Bible  Union,  at  New  York,  October 
3d,  1850  :  ''The  American  and  Foreign  Bible  So- 
ciety was  organized  to  vindicate  A  principle  ; 
and,  in  accordance  with  this  principle,  haptizo  and 
its  cognates  should  be  rendered  by  words  signify- 
ing immerse,  immersion,'^  etc.  Did  the  managers 
know  the  principle  upon  which  the  secession  took 
place  ?  Did  Dr.  Cone  know  ?  Is  it  likely  that 
the  managers  and  Dr.  Cone,  the  president  of  the 
A.  and  F.  Bible  Society  for  many  years,  were 
ignorant  of  the  principle  upon  which  the  Society 
was  organized  ?  It  is  true  that  the  A.  and  F. 
Bible  Society  resolved  to  use  the  commonly  re- 


42       laiMERSIONISTS    AGAINST    THE    BIBLE. 

ceived  version  till  otherwise  ordered  by  the  So- 
ciety; but,  at  the  same  time,  they  meditated  a 
new  English  version,  "  in  which  (to  use  their 
own  language)  the  word  panrt^o)  shall  be  faith- 
fiilhj  translated  to  immerse." 

The  final  consideration  of  this  project  was  de- 
ferred till  1850,  when  (the  matter  being  before 
the  managers)  ^' they  shrank  from  the  responsi- 
bility of  their  original  purpose,"  and  decided  to 
be  content  with  the  commonly  received  version 
of  the  English  Scriptures.  And,  at  the  anniver- 
sary of  the  Society  in  the  same  year,  this  decision 
was  approved  and  adopted  by  a  large  majority. 
Upon  this  decision,  the  minority,  with  Dr.  Cone 
at  their  head  again,  "  seceded  from  the  secession," 
and  formed  what  is  styled  the  American  Bible 
Union.  Why  were  they  induced  to  take  this 
step  ?  Hear  Dr.  Cone  again  upon  this  point, 
in  the  speech  from  which  we  quoted  above. 
Having  said,  as  we  have  quoted,  "  that  the  A. 
and  F.  Bible  Society  was  organized  to  vindicate 
a princi]ple,"  and  "that,  in  accordance  with  this 
principle,  ha2'>tizo  and  its  cognates  shou-'d  be  ren- 


IMMERSIONISTS   AGAINST    THE   BIBLE.        13 

dered  by  words  signifying  immerse,  mimcrsion," 
etc. ,  he  proceeds  to  indicate  the  principle  which 
was  to  govern  the  American  Bible  Union  :  ^^And 
here  (i.  e.,  whether  laptizo  should,  be  rendered 
iminerse)  we  fought  the  battle  with  the  Pedo- 
baptists,  and  here  we  have  to  fight  the  battle 
over  again  with  the  Baptists,  who  will  not  allow 
'immerse,  immersion,  etc.,  to  have  a  place  in  the 
New  Testament. 

'When  Greek  meets  Greek, 
Then  comes  the  tug  of  "war.' 

Either  fear  ^that  the  Pedobaptists  will  come 
down  upon  us  with  tremendous  power/  as  a  dis- 
tinguished brother  said,  or  shame,  or  some  other 
motive  of  which  I  know  nothing,  deters  many 
from  bearing  in  English  the  same  testimony  for 
Christ's  despised  ordinance  of  immersion,  which 
they  have  made  it  the  imperative  duty  of  their 
missionaries  to  bear  in  all  the  languages  of  the 
heathen. '^ 

Does  not  the  above  quotation  most  conclusively 
show  that  the  reason   of  Dr.  Cone  and  his  bve- 


44       IMMERSIONISTS    AGAINST    THE   BIBLE. 

tliren's  seceding  from  the  American  and  Foreign 
Bible  Society  was  simply  tliat  they  (the  Society) 
would  not  agree  to  have  an  immersionist  version 
of  the  English  Scriptures  ?  Would  they  have 
been  satisfied  with  any  version  which  should  not 
have  conformed  to  this  principle  ?  It  was  not 
merely  a  new  version  which  they  wanted,  that 
should  contain  a  correction  of  errors  in  general, 
but  it  was  a  new  version  which  should  have  im- 
merse instead  of  haptizej  in  accordance  with  the 
principle  announced  by  Dr,  Cone.  This  was  a 
sine  qua  non  with  them.  This,  then,  is  the 
^^principle,''  for  the  sake  of  which  they  separated 
from  the  A.  and  F.  Bible  Society,  and  upon 
which  they  organized  the  American  Bible  Union. 
Have  they  since  abandoned  this  principle  ? 
Where  is  the  record  of  it  ?  They  have  never 
published  it  to  the  world.  There  is  abundant 
proof  that  they  intend  to  adhere  to  it  with  a  pas- 
sionate devotion.  Ah  !  to  have  their  favorite 
dogma  in  the  New  Testament !  It  will  save  them 
a  world  of  trouble  and  vexation.  It  will  be  in- 
deed a  great  acquisition.     They  will  be 


IMMERSIONISTS    AGAINST    THE   BIBLE.       4o  . 

"As  rich  in  having  such  a  jewel, 

As  twenty  seas,  if  all  theii'  sand  were  pearl, 
The  water  nectar,  and  the  rocks  pure  gold." 

Why  did  the  immersionists  in  India  and 
Europe  secede  from  the  Bible  Society  of  Cal- 
cutta, and  the  British  and  Foreign  Bible  Society  ? 
Because  these  societies  refused  to  sanction  or 
patronize  any  version  in  which  jSaTTrl^G)  is  made 
to  signify  immerse.  Would  they  have  seceded, 
had  it  not  been  for  this  ?  And  would  any  thing 
short  of  a  revocation  of  this  decision  have  satis- 
fied them  ?  It  would  not.  And  this  is  settled 
beyond  all  controversy  by  the  fact  that  they 
formed  a  society  in  England,  subsequently  to  the 
organization  of  the  American  and  Foreign  Bible 
Society,  called  '^  The  British  Translation  Society," 
one  article  of  whose  constitution  reads  as  follows : 
^'It  shall  be  the  object  of  this  Society  to  encour- 
age the  production  and  circulation  of  complete 
translations  of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  completely 
authenticated  for  fidelity,  it  being  always  under- 
stood that  the  icords  relating  to  the  ordinance  of 


46       IMMERSIONISTS   AGAINST    THE   BIBLE. 

baptism  shall  he  translated  hy  words  signifying 
immerse.'' 

This  for  ever  settles  the  question  as  regards  the 
main  object  the  British  Baptists  have  in  view. 
Their  main  object  is  to  put  immerse  in  the  place 
of  baptize  ;  and  they  are  candid  enough  to  avow 
it  even  in  the  constitution  of  their  Society.  I 
regret  I  cannot  say  the  same  of  the  immersionists 
in  this  country.  But  it  may  be  said  that  the  ad- 
vocates of  revision  in  this  country  have  nothing 
to  do  with  the  movement  in  Great  Britain,  and 
are  not  responsible  for  any  position  they  may  have 
assumed. 

But  it  is  a  fact,  that  the  Translation  Society  of 
G-reat  Britain  was  organized  under  the  auspices 
of  the  American  and  Foreign  Bible  Society,  the 
managers  of  which  appointed  Dr.  McClay,  in 
September,  1839,  to  visit  the  Baptists  of  England. 
And,  in  a  letter  addressed  to  them,  they  give 
their  reasons  for  sending  their  agent. 

I  make  the  following  extracts  :  "While  it  is  our 
sincere  prayer  that  the  appointment  of  brother 
McClay  may  promote  a  more  intimate  fraternal 


IMMERSIONISTS    AGAINST   THE   BIBLE.       47 

union  between  British  and  American  Baptists  in 
every  thing  that  relates  to  the  prosperity  of  the 
Eedeemer's  kingdom,  we  particularly  hope  that 
in  the  publication  of  faithful  versions  of  the 
Bible  in  all  lauds,  we  may  ere  long  obtain  the 
active  cooperation  of  every  Baptist  in  Great 
Britain.  Why  should  they  not  thus  unite,  when 
it  is  known  that  the  British  and  Foreign  Bible  So- 
ciety and  the  American  Bible  Society  have  virtu- 
ally combined  to  obscure  at  least  a  part  of  Divine 
revelation  ?  To  the  friends  of  truth  it  cannot  be 
otherwise  than  a  subject  of  deep  lamentation  that 
these  societies,  which,  of  all  others,  ought  to  be 
anti-sectarian,  continue  to  circulate  versions  of 
the  Bible  unfaithful,  at  least  so  far  as  the  subject 
of  Baptism  is  concerned." — Third  Annual  Re- 
port, pp.  45,  46. 

In  these  extracts,  Dr.  McOlay  is  recognized  as 
the  agent  of  the  Society;  and  the  managers  ex- 
press the  hope  that  he  may  influence  them  (the 
English  Baptists)  to  cooperate  ^'in  the  publication 
of  faithful  versions  of  the  Bible."  And  we 
learu  what  they  mean  by  "faithful  versions"  in. 


48        IMMERSIONISTS    AGAINST    THE   BIBLE. 

their  lamentation  about  the  course  pursued  by  the 
B.  and  F.  B.  Society  and  the  A.  B.  Society  in  cir- 
culating "  versions  of  the  Bible  un/ait7i/ul,  at 
least  so  far  as  the  subject  of  baptism  is  con- 
cerned.'^ Here  is  more  than  a  hint  as  regards 
the  principle  upon  which  they  expected  the 
English  Baptists  to  cooperate  with  them.  They 
were  expected  to  recognize  immersion  as  a  sine 
qua  non  in  versions  of  the  Bible. 

Dr.  McClay,  after  visiting  the  Baptist  churches 
generally,  writes  to  the  American  and  Foreign 
Bible  Society  from  London,  as  follows  :  "  It  is 
proposed  to  organize  a  Translation  Society/'  etc. 
(Quar.  Pap.,  p.  122.)  In  the  next  letter  he 
writes  as  follows  :  '^My  mission  to  Great  Britain, 
by  the  Divine  blessing,  has  been  crowned  with 
success.  It  has  aided  in  the  formation  of  the 
Bible  Translation  Society,  whose  object  is  to  pro- 
mote the  circulation  of  faitliful  versions  of  the 
Sacred  Scriptures  in  all  languages."  And  what 
he  means  by  such  "versions,'^  we  learn  from 
what  he  says  of  the  British  and  Foreign  Bible 
Society  :  '^A  society  that  has  treated  us  with  in- 


IMMERSIONISTS   AGAINST    THE    BIBLE.       49 

justice  and  contempt,  and  by  their  actions  say 
that  they  would  rather  see  the  heathen  perish  in 
their  idolatry,  ignorance,  and  unbelief,  than  give 
them  a  Bible  that  shall  inform  them  of  the  exact 
mind  of  the  Holy  Spirit  on  the  subject  of  hap- 
tism."  And  this  Society  (the  British  Translation 
Society)  was  formed  to  promote  this  end — i.  e., 
to  do  what  the  B.  and  F.  Bible  Society  had  failed 
to  do,  and  were  unwilling  to  do — inform  the  hea- 
then of  "the  exact  mind  of  the  Holy  Spirit  on 
the  subject  of  haptism.''^ 

To  show  more  fully  that  the  societies  in  Eng- 
land and  America  are  one  in  their  position  on  the 
subject  of  a  new  version,  the  managers  of  the 
American  and  Foreign  Bible  Society,  speaking  of 
the  success  of  their  agent  in  the  formation  of  the 
Translation  Society,  use  the  following  language : 

"  Your  Board  consider  as  auspicious  in  the 
history  of  our  denomination  the  union  of  Ameri- 
can and  British  Baptists  in  one  common  effort  to 
give  to  the  remotest  nations  the  revelations  of 
Infinite  Wisdom,  unadulterated  by  any  admix- 
5 


50       IMMERSIONISTS   AGAINST    THE   BIBLE. 

ture  of  human  superstition."  (Third  Annual 
Report,  pp.  11,  39,  41.) 

Here  is  a  hearty  and  unqualified  approval  of 
the  Bible  Translation  Society  of  Great  Britain. 
They  speak  of  the  ^'  union  of  British  and  Ameri- 
can Baptists"  in  the  translation  movement.  But 
how  could  this  be  if  they  did  not  agree  in  the 
great  cardinal  principle  ?  In  the  appendix  to 
the  Third  Annual  Report,  p.  65,  the  managers 
publish  the  entire  constitution  of  the  Translation 
Society,  embracing  the  second  article  which  we 
have  quoted  above.  In  their  Fourth  Report, 
p.  65,  they  welcome  the  institution  in  the  follow- 
ing; terms  : 

^^  The  formation  of  this  Society  on  the  24th  of 
March,  1840,  has  imparted  joy  to  our  hearts,  and 
vigor  to  our  hopes  concerning  the  speedy  accom- 
plishment of  that  great  object  for  which  the 
American  and  Foreign  Bible  Society  was  con- 
stituted." 

The  American  and  Foreign  Bible  Society  fully 
approved  of   the  action  of   the  Board  in  ever}' 


laiMERSIONISTS    AGAINST    THE    BIBLE.        51 

step  tliey  took  in  reference  to  this  Society.  At 
their  anniversary,  April  29th,  1841,  the  following 
resolution  was  unanimously  passed  : 

^^ Resolved,  That  we  rejoice  in  the  recent  forma- 
tion of  the  Bible  Translation  Society  in  Great 
Britain,  and  hail  it  as  an  institution  kindred  to 
the  American  and  Foreign  Bible  Society,  and  a 
valuable  coadjutor  in  the  Bible  translation.'^ 
(Fourth  Annual  Report,  p.  60.) 

How  could  this  Society  be  "  kindred '^  to  the 
American  and  Foreign  Bible  Society,  ^^and  a 
valuable  coadjutor  in  the  work  of  Bible  transla- 
tion,^' if  they  did  not  agree  in  their  position  in 
regard  to  the  translation  of  haptizo  ? 

In  the  Fifth  Annual  Report,  p.  8,  Dr.  Cone, 
adopting  the  language  of  the  secretary  of  the 
British  Translation  Society,  says :  ^'  Our  only 
business  is  to  uphold  immersionist  versions,  and 
give  them  as  large  a  circulation  as  we  can;  and 
this  becomes  our  business,  because  all  the  rest  of 
the  Christian  world  have  thrown  them  away. 
This    single   object   is   our   rallying -point.      In 


52       IMMERSIONISTS   AGAINST   THE   BIBLE. 

these  sentiments/'  says  Dr.  Cone,  ^^  we  cordially 
unite.'' 

I  fear  I  may  weary  tlie  reader  with  the  number 
of  quotations.  But  there  are  so  many  ^^twhtings 
and  turnings^'  adopted  in  order  to  evade  the 
true  issue^  and  blind  the  public  mind,  that  there 
is  required  "line  upon  line,  and  precept  upon 
precept."  The  course  adopted  by  the  advocates 
of  this  movement  reminds  me  of  the  stratagem 
adopted  by  Cacus  in  stealing  the  cattle  of 
Hercules,  and  conducting  them  to  his  cave.  He 
led  them  by  the  tail  instead  of  the  Jiorns,  so  that, 
if  pursued,  the  pursuer,  if  he  followed  the  track, 
might  be  sure  to  go  the  wrong  way,  and  arrive  at 
the  wrong  place. 

All  the  sophistry  they  can  invent  is  employed 
to  keep  the  public  in  the  dark  as  to  what  they 
are  really  about;  and  so  "they  wrap  it  up,"  to 
use  one  of  their  own  favorite  quotations.  But 
they  cannot  impose  upon  the  public  where  the 
facts  are  known.  Neither  can  they  restrain  the 
indignation   "that  will    come   down  upon  them 


IMMERSIONISTS    AGAINST    THE   BIBLE.        5o 

witli  tremendous  power"  when   the   facts   shall 
generally  go  abroad.     They 

"  May  as  well  forbid  the  mountain  pines 
To  "wag  their  high  tops  and  make  no  noise 
When  they  are  fretted  -with  the  gusts  of  heaven." 


5* 


54       IMMERSIONISTS    AGAINST    THE    BIBLE. 


CHAPTER  lY. 

THE    MAIN    DESIGN,    CONTINUED. 

This  will  appear  still  more  fully  from  addi- 
tional quotations  from  the  publications  of  tlie 
American  and  Foreign  Bible  Society,  and  the 
American  Bible  Union,  etc.  And  let  the  reader 
bear  in  mind  what  we  announced  in  a  former 
chapter,  that  we  shall  quote  from  the  jpuhlications 
of  the  friends  and  advocates  of  this  movement 
to  sustain  our  position.  They  cannot  object  to 
this  testimony.     It  is  their  own. 

I  first  make  additional  quotations  from  the 
documents  of  the  American  and  Foreign  Bible 
Society.  Bev.  E.  Kincaid,  missionary  to  China, 
in  a  letter  to  the  Society,  says :  ''  It  appears  to 
me  that  the  Baptists  were  driven  out  of  the  old 
societies  unless  they  would  pledge  themselves  to 
betray    Christ  —  unless   they   would    barter   for 


IMMERSIONISTS    AGAINST    THE   BIBLE.        55 

money  tlie  great  initiatori/  ordinance  of  the  rjo&pel. 
Why  keep  back  from  the  nations  any  part  of 
God's  word  ?  Certainly  there  is  no  more  doubt 
about  the  meaning  of  the  word  (Sanrti^o)  than 
there  is  about  dprog ;  and  to  leave  either  untrans- 
lated, would  be  evidence  of  ignorance  or  dis- 
honesty/'    (Quar.  Pap.,  p.  77.) 

Kev.  Mr.  Cushman,  in  a  speech  before  the 
Society,  says:  ''It  (the  English  Bible)  is  not 
sufficiently  defective,  except  in  relation  to  baptism 
and  church  order,  to  be  distrusted  as  a  guide  to 
truth  and  duty."  (Second  xinnual  Report,  Ap- 
pendix, p.  50.) 

Rev.  Dr.  Judson :  ''I  rejoice  in  the  formation 
of  the  Bible  Translation  Society  of  England,  and 
in  the  continued  prosperity  of  the  American  and 
Foreign  Bible  Society.  I  verily  believe  that  it 
was  by  the  special  providence  of  God  that  the 
old  Bible  societies  were  left  to  take  the  unjustifi- 
able course  they  did,  in  order  that  the  peculiar 
truths  which  distinguish  the  Baptist  denomina- 
tion might  be  brought  forward  in  a  manner  un- 


56       IMMERSIONISTS    AGAINST    THE    BIBLE 

precedented,  and  ultimately  triunipli.'^  (Fourth 
Annual  Report,  p.  67.) 

The  Board  of  Managers  use  the  following 
language  :  ''  The  evils  which  have  accrued  from 
the  introduction  of  a  single  word  imposed  by 
foreign  influence,  and  the  bigotry  of  an  earthly 
prince,  no  human  mind  can  compute.  Nearly 
all  the  European  versions  subsequently  made 
have  been  conformed  to  the  principles  adopted  by 
King  James's  translators ;  and  thus  a  word  has 
been  perpetuated  from  generation  to  generation, 
the  precise  meaning  of  which  none  but  the 
learned  could  with  certainty  ascertain.  And  as 
these  versions  have,  in  most  instances,  been  made 
by  Pedobaptists,  the  error  of  sprinkling  has  ob- 
tained the  blind  and  almost  universal  suffrage  of 
what  is  called  the  Christian  world. '^ 

The  managers  quote  with  approbation  the 
following  from  Dr.  Judson :  "  Had  the  Greek 
word  haptizo,  which  denotes  the  principal  action 
in  this  ordinance,  heen  translated  in  the  English 
version  of  the  New  Testament,  there  would  pro- 


IMMERSIONISTS   AGAINST    THE   BIBLE.        57 

bablj  have  been  among  English  readers  no  dis- 
pute concerning  its  import.  .  .  .  But,  un- 
happily, our  translators  have  retained  the  original 
word,  and  contented  themselves  with  merely 
changing  its  termination."     (Quar.  Pap.,  p.  5.) 

The  President  of  the  Society,  Dr.  Cone,  says, 
in  his  address  to  the  Society  in  1846  :  "In  re- 
taining haptizOj  they  have  done  more  injury  to 
the  cause  of  God  and  truth  than  if  they  had 
retained  a  dozen  other  old  ecclesiastical  words.'' 

The  Board  of  Managers  say :  "  It  is  well 
known  that  there  was  not  one  Baptist  among  the 
forty-seven  translators  appointed  by  King  James, 
and  that  we  have  never  acknowledged  that  their 
version  of  the  Scriptures  was  in  all  respects 
faithful.  In  common  with  other  Christians,  we 
have  been  willing  to  receive  it  only  because  that 
hitherto  we  had  supposed  that  the  time  had  not 
come  to  attempt  an  improved  and  faithful  version, 
well  knowing  that  in  such  an  undertaking  we 
must  stand  alone,  and  could  hope  for  no  assist- 
ance from  Pedobaptists,  whose  denominational 
existence  depends   upon  the   non-translation  of 


58       IMMERSIONISTS   AGAINST   THE    BIBLE. 

those  words  in  the  New  Testament  which  relate 
to  the  ordinance  of  baptism. '^  (Second  Annual 
Report,  pp.  12,  13.) 

Rev.  Dr.  Dowling,  in  a  speech  before  the 
American  and  Foreign  Bible  Society,  says  :  '^  The 
principle  on  which  the  American  and  Foreign 
Bible  Society  is  based  is  destined  ultimately  to 
batter  down  the  last  pillar  of  Popery — infant 
sprinkling.  Protestantism  says  :  Tell  the  people 
what  God  says :  translate  his  book,  that  the 
people  may  know  what  he  says:  translate  the 
whole  of  it,  and  translate  it  faithfully.  Time 
will  show  how  long  the  substitution  of  sprinkling 
for  believers'  baptism  will  stand  before  the  burn- 
ing torch  of  truth  and  the  light  of  God's  word, 
when  fully  and  faithfully  translated."  (Ibid,  pp. 
55,  56.) 

Dr.  McClay,  in  his  Saratoga  address,  says: 
^'  The  difficulty  which  separated  the  Baptists  and 
Pedobaptists  in  the  Bible  cause  originated  in  the 
East  Indies.  The  Pedobaptists,  who  came  into 
the  field  long  after  our.  Baptist  brethren,  experi- 
enced difficulties  in  making  converts  to  sprink- 


IMMERSIOXISTS   AGAINST    THE    BIBLE.        59 

ling,  and  in  retaining  them  after  they  were  made, 
in  consequence  of  the  word  haptizo  being  rendered 
by  a  word  signifying  immerse  in  all  our  versions 
of  the  Scriptures." 

Dr.  McClay,  in  this  same  address,  says :  ''  We 
had  no  hand  in  making  our  English  version.  It 
was  made  for  us  by  Episcopalians ;  and  though 
we  consider  it  in  the  main  an  excellent  version, 
yet  we  believe  that  great  injustice  has  been  done 
to  the  truth  of  God  by  concealing  the  meaning 
of  baptism  from  the  unlearned,  who  are  the  mass 
of  the  community.  But  the  day  may  come,  and 
perhaps  it  is  at  no  great  distance,  when  the  Bap- 
tist denomination  shall  deem  it  their  duty  to  give 
a  version  of  the  Sacred  Scriptures  in  the  English 
language,  in  which  the  word  haptizo  shall  be 
faithfully  translated  to  immerse,  and  thus  give 
the  truth,  the  whole  truth,  and  nothing  but  the 
truth  in  reference  to  this  subject,  that  the  un- 
learned as  well  as  the  learned  may  know  the  will 
of  God  and  their  duty.'^ 

Hear  Dr.  Cone  and  Mr.  Wyckoff,  in  a  tract 
entitled    ''The    Bible     Translated."       '^Let    a 


60        IMMERSIONISTS   AGAINST    THE   BIBLE. 

Bible  Society,  like  tlie  American  and  Foreign, 
dare  to  say  tliat  haptizo  means  to  immerse,  and 
stamp  their  conviction  upon  the  English  Testa- 
ment, and  a  stimulus  would  be  given  to  the 
inquiry,  and  a  sanction  to  the  truth,  which  would 
multiply  manifold  the  numbers  of  those  immersed 
into  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  the  Son,  and 
Holy  Spirit.'' 

I  might  give  ten  times  the  amount  of  the 
above  quotations  from  the  publications  of  the 
American  and  Foreign  Bible  Society ;  but  these 
must  suffice  in  this  place.  And  what  do  they 
most  satisfactorily  establish  ?  Do  they  not  show 
that,  from  the  beginning,  there  has  been  but  one 
main  idea,  and  THAT  the  suhstitution  of  immerse 
for  baptize?  What  is  the  grand  objection  urged 
against  our  translation  ?  It  is  not  objected  to 
so  much  for  errors  in  general.  The  capital 
objection  is,  that  (3a7:TL^G)  was  not  translated 
immerse.  Thus  Dr.  McClay  :  "  Though  we  con- 
sider it  in  the  main  an  excellent  version,  yet  we 
believe  that  great  injustice  has  been  done  to  the 
truth  of  God  by  concealing  the  true  meaning  of 


IMMERSIONISTS    AGAINST    THE   BIBLE.        61 

haj)fi'sm  from  tlie  unlearned."  That  is,  the 
commonly  received  version  would  do  very  well  if 
it  were  only  right  on  the  subject  of  baptism. 
Their  hope  of  the  destruction  of  the  errors  of 
sprinkling  and  infant  baptism,  and  all  the  cor- 
ruptions existing  in  Pedobaptist  Churches,  (and 
these  are  many,  according  to  their  notion,)  and 
the  conversion  of  the  world  in  the  triumph  of 
immersionist  principles,  is  suspended  upon  put- 
ting immerse  in  the  New  Testament  in  the  place 
of  haptize. 

I  will  now  call  the  attention  of  the  reader  to  a 
few  additional  quotations  from  the  publications  of 
the  American  Bible  Union.  This  Society,  the 
reader  will  bear  in  mind,  is  a  secession  from  the 
American  and  Foreign  Bible  Society,  (Baptist,) 
as  that  is  a  secession  from  the  American  Bible 
Society.  And  that  while,  in  common  with  the 
American  and  Foreign  Bible  Society,  it  seeks  to 
secure  only  immersionist  versions  of  the  Scrip- 
tures in  forei2;n  lano-uao-es,  it  at  the  same  time 
aims  to  secure  a  version  upon  this  principle  in 
6 


62       IMMERSIONISTS   AGAINST   THE   BIBLE. 

English.  The  friends  of  this  Society,  however, 
deny  that  such  is  its  object,  or,  at  least,  that  this 
is  its  main  design.  If,  however.  Dr.  Cone  knew 
any  thing  of  the  main  object  of  the  movement, 
such  is  the  character  of  the  version  they  seek. 
Dr.  Cone  headed  the  secession  from  the  American 
Bible  Society,  and  was,  till  the  secession  from 
the  American  and  Foreign  Bible  Society,  in 
1850,  the  President  of  that  institution ;  and  he 
was  the  President  of  the  American  Bible  Union 
from  its  organization,  in  1850,  till  his  death  in 
1855.  No  man,  therefore,  could  enjoy  better 
opportunity  of  knowing  the  main  design  of  the 
movement  than  Dr.  Cone  did. 

We  have  already  quoted  from  his  speech  at  the 
first  anniversary  of  the  American  Bible  Union, 
in  1850,  in  which  he  addresses  his  brethren  as 
'^  Brethren  and  friends  of  immersionist  versions 
of  the  Holy  Scriptures  in  all  languages,  but 
especially  in  the  Englii>]i.^'  Now  here  the  terms 
in  which  he  addresses  his  brethren  show  the  main 
purpose  of  their  organization.    They  arc  addressed 


IMMERSIONISTS   AGAINST   THE   BIBLE.       63 

as  ^^  friends  of  immersionist  versions  of  tlie  Holy 
Scriptures — especially  in  English.' '  Did  he  not 
know  whom  lie  was  addressing  ? 

Hear  Dr.  Cone  again,  in  his  speech  at  the 
second  anniversary  of  the  American  Bible  Union, 
October  2d,  1851:  ^'Brethren  and  friends,  the 
American  Bible  Union  has  a  mission  of  grave 
responsibility.  We  are  called  in  the  providence 
of  God  to  employ  our  best  efforts  to  j^rocure, 
printj  and  circulate  faithful  versions  of  the 
Scriptures  in  all  lands.'' 

And  we  learn  what  Dr.  C.  means  by  faithful 
versions  a  little  further  along  in  the  same  speech. 
Hear  him :  ^'  He  (Dr.  C.)  has  dared  to  say  from 
this  pulpit  again  and  again,  that  Christian  hap- 
tism  is  immersion  only ;  and  that  if  right  to 
preach  it,  it  is  right  to  print  it — to  print  it  in 
THE  Bible  ;  for  if  it  is  not  in  the  Bible,  we  have 
no  right  to  preach  it  or  print  it  as  apart  of  God's 
revealed  will  to  man." 

'■^  One  of  the  most  specious  arguments  that  has 
been  advanced  against  the  correction  of  the  com- 
mon version  is,  that  thereby  we  must  forfeit  the 


64       IMMERSIONISTS    AGAINST    THE    BIBLE. 

name  of  Baptists.  The  words  relating  to  the 
ordinance  must  of  necessity  be  translated ;  and 
because  the  common  people  will  learn  that  it  is 
the  duty  of  believers  to  be  immersed,  therefore 
the  term  Baptist  will  cease  to  be  the  appellation 
of  those  who  follow  their  Lord.  This  is  not  a 
necessary  consequence.  .  .  .  The  great  thing  is 
to  follow  Christ.  ...  To  do  this  we  must  know 
what  he  commands.  Does  he  command  believers 
in  Christ  to  be  immersed  in  his  name  ?  Where 
is  the  difference  in  criminality  hQiy^e&Oi  printing 
it  and  preaching  it  ?  If  the  latter  be  right,  the 
former  cannot  be  wrong."  "  How  strange,  how 
inexplicable,  that  any  who  wear  this  name  should 
be  afraid  or  ashamed  to  print  what  they  believe 
and  preach  !  " 

^'  Since  the  English  word  haptize,  according  to 
our  standard  lexicographers,  means  to  sprinkle, 
pour,  asperse,  christen,  etc.,  the  American 
Bible  Union  must  come  up  to  the  help  of  the 
Lord  against  the  mighty;  take  oif  the  popish 
cover  from  his  pure  word ;  disabuse  the  public 
mind,  led  astray  by  doctors  and  dictionaries ;  and, 


IMMEKSIONISTS   AGAINST    THE   BIBLE.       66 

among  other  revealed  truths,  show  to  all  who 
understand  our  language  that  hapiism  is  immer- 
sion only." 

Here  ^^the  main  design'^  is  boldly  avowed 
and  defended.  If  they  should  lose  their  name 
by  substituting  immerse  for  haj^ti'ze,  (though  not 
'^  a  necessary  consequence/'  as  he  thinks,)  yet 
they  must  not  be  deterred.  ''The  great  thing  is 
to  follow  Christ."  "If  it  is  right  to  i^reacli  it, 
{immersion,)  it  is  right  to  print  it."  And  inas- 
much as  it  is  not  in  the  Bible,  ''it  is  right  to 
PRINT  IT  IN  THE  BiBLE  :"  Otherwise  "it  is  not 
right  to  preach  it,  or  j^rint  it." 

And,  then,  as  the  standard  lexicographers  are 
all  wrong  in  the  definitions  they  give  to  baptize, 
therefore  "the  American  Bible  Union  .must  come 
up  to  the  help  of  the  Lord  against  the  mighty," 
and  show  to  those  speaking  our  language  who 
"  are  led  astray  by  doctors  and  dictionaries,  that 
baptism  is  immersion  onli/,"  1  would  suggest 
that  they  take  into  consideration  the  propriety  of 
attempting  a  new  version  of  the  "Doctors  and 
Dictionaries.'^  If  they  could  get  them  reformed 
6* 


66       IMMERSIONISTS    AGAINST   THE   BIBLE. 

to  tlieir  notions,  a  great  deal  of  trouble  would  be 
obviated  in  the  prosecution  of  the  enterprise  in 
which  they  are  engaged.  The  fact  is,  a  new  ver- 
sion of  almost  every  thing  will  have  to  be  secured 
before  our  immersionist  friends  can  get  along  as 
they  desire. 

Listen  to  Dr.  Cone  again,  in  his  address  before 
the  Bible  Union,  October  6th,  1853  :  ''  In  revis- 
ing the  commonly  received  English  version,  the 
real  point  of  controversy  between  us  and  the  anti- 
revisionists  is  the  question  lohetlier  haptizo  shall 
he  translated  or  7iot.  Settle  that  point  on  the 
side  of  the  truth :  allow  the  real  meaning  of  the 
word  to  appear  in  all  its  plainness  and  simplicity, 
and  then  no  one  but  a  Roman  Catholic  will  object 
to  the  whole  Bible  being  brought  as  near  the 
original  as  possible. ^^ 

Now,  supposing  Dr.  Cone  to  have  been  posted 
in  regard  to  the  main  design  of  the  movement, 
this  quotation  settles  the  question. 

In  order  that  I  may  show  that  the  main  design 
on  account  of  which  the  movement  was  besuu 
has  not  been  abandoned,  I  make  a  few  extracts 


IMMERSIONISTS    AGAINST   THE    BIBLE.        67 

from  the  Bible  Union  Reporter  for  January,  1854. 
This  is  one  of  the  organs  of  the  Union.  I  quote 
from  pages  81,  82.  In  a  speech  deHvered  before 
the  American  Bible  Union,  by  the  Rev.  J.  II. 
Chandler,  a  missionary  to  Siam,  he  gives  an  ac- 
count of  a  late  translation  of  the  Scriptures  into 
the  Siamese  language,  by  a  Mr.  Jones.  He  says 
that  in  this  version,  "In  speaking  of  John  the 
forerunner  of  Christ,  he  is  called  ^  John  the  im- 
mej'ser  ;'  and  in  all  those  passages  where  haptize, 
haptized,  baptism  occur,  immerse,  immersed, 
immersion  are  used  :  so  that  the  word  Bap>t>'st  is 
nowhere  to  be  found  in  the  book  :  no,  not  even 
on  the  English  title-page." 

"  However  others  may  be  liable  to  the  charge 
of  making  Baptist  Bibles  and  Testaments,  I  am 
sure  it  cannot  be  brought  against  Mr.  Jones ;  for 
you  will  see  that  there  is  nothing  about  Baptists 
in  any  part  of  his  translation.  The  converts  in 
Siam  do  not,  so  far  as  I  am  aware,  know  that 
there  is  such  a  body  as  the  Bap)tist  denomina- 
tion." ! ! ! 

He  then  2;ives  a  few  extracts  from  the  Siamese 


68       IMMERSIONISTS   AGAINST   THE   BIBLE. 

version — Matt.  iii.  1 :  "  In  those  days  came  Jolin 
the  immerser."  Matt.  iii.  11 :  "  I  indeed  im- 
merse  you  in  water ;  but  He  will  immerse  you  in 
the  Holy  Spirit  and  fire." 

The  editor  of  the  Reporter  adds :  "  By  these 
extracts  from  our  Siamese  version,  it  will  be  seen 
that  the  principles  for  ivhich  the  Bible  Union  is 
contending  J  are  the  same  which  control  Baptist 
missionaries  in  Asia."  The  priHc«^?es  recognized 
by  the  Baptist  missionary  in  Siam,  controlled  him 
to  use  a  word  for  (3anTL^(0  which  means  immerse, 
and  nothing  else.  And  if  this  is  the  same  prin- 
ciple for  which  the  Bible  Union  is  contending, 
then  it  will  control  them  to  put  immerse  in  the 
place  of  baptize  in  their  proposed  new  version  of 
the  English  Scriptures. 

I  quote  again  from  a  speech  delivered  by  the 
Bev,  John  L.  Waller,  LL.D.,  before  the  Revision 
Association,  at  Nashville,  Tenn.,  April  10th, 
1854,  as  published  in  the  Bible  Union  Reporter 
for  May,  1854,  pp.  152,  153  :  '^  The  word  (bap- 
tism) has  no  modal  signification.  In  this  respect 
it  means  any  thing  and  every  thing,  and  therefore 


IMMERSIONISTS    AGAINST    THE   BIBLE.        69 

notliing.  It  is  a  word  of  no  mode  at  all.  It  is 
in  vain  for  my  Baptist  brethren  to  tell  me  that 
immersion  is  plainly  taught  in  the  English  ver- 
sion, I  grant  that  it  is.  A  child  may  read  it 
there  as  if  \rritten  in  lines  of  light.  But  it  is 
not  taught  by  the  word  baptize.  That  word 
bears  no  testimony  on  the  subject.  It  is  as  silent 
as  an  Egyptian  mummy. 

"It  is  in  vain  to  reason  with  the  individual 
who  seriously  insists  that  baptize  means  to  im- 
merse ;  or  that  it  has  any  modal  meaning  what- 
ever, since  the  Elizabethan  age.  We  might  as 
well  attempt  to  teach  logic  to  an  orang-outang  as 
to  impart  the  laws  of  language  to  the  man  who 
would  gravely  dispute  a  position  so  self-evident. 
Such  an  individual  is  surely  delivered  over  to 
believe  a  lie." 

If  the  above  be  correct  reasoning,  what  is  the 
only  alternative  ?  Why,  according  to  the  ^'prin- 
ciple^' which  the  American  and  Foreign  Bible 
Society  was  organized  "  to  vindicate,''^  and  which 
the  American  Bible  Union,  as  the  successor  of 
the  American  and  Foreign  Bible  Society,  as  far 


iO       IMMERSIONISTS   AGAINST    THE   BIBLE. 

as  tlie  English  Scriptures  are  concerned,  are  most 
solemnly  pledged  to  vindicate,  they  must  substi- 
tute immerse.  And  is  not  the  Revision  Associa- 
tion, before  which  this  address  of  Dr.  W.  was 
delivered,  coordinate  with  the  American  Bible 
Union  ?  Are  not  its  friends  cooperating  with  the 
Union  in  'Hhe  greatest  enterprise  of  the  age?" 
Have  they  ever  disclaimed  its  great  principle  ? 
Nay,  verily;  but,  on  the  contrary,  they  have 
affirmed  it  in  the  most  conclusive  manner.  And 
yet,  many  of  the  advocates  of  the  movement 
positively  deny  that  the  main  design  is  to  substi- 
tute immerse  for  haptize.  How  strange,  that 
men  professing  honestij,  let  alone  godliness,  should 
be  guilty  of  such  shufiing  I 

But  listen  to  the  following,  from  Tract  No.  13, 
written  by  the  Rev.  Mr.  Judd,  and  published  by 
the  American  Bible  Union  :  "  Editors  and  their 
correspondents,  and  many  other  teachers  in  Israel, 
have  taken  much  pains  to  make  the  people  be- 
lieve that  the  great  object  of  the  American  Bible 
Union,  and  of  the  whole  revision  enterprise,  is  to 
substitute  the  word  immerse  for  baptize,  in  our 


IMMERSIONISTS   AGAINST    THE   BIBLE.        71 

common  version.  .  .  .  But  tlie  idea  has  no  found- 
ation in  fact.  It  lias  been  formed  in  direct  oppo- 
sition to  tlie  public  official  documents  and  uniform 
action  of  the  Union.''  And  then,  in  order  to  sus- 
tain this  disclaimer,  he  gives  the  rules  by  which 
the  translators  of  the  new  version  are  bound : 

"  1.  The  exact  meaning  of  the  inspired  text, 
as  that  text  expressed  it  to  those  who  understood 
the  original  Scriptures  at  the  time  they  were  first 
written,  must  be  translated  by  corresponding- 
words  and  phrases,  so  far  as  they  can  be  found  in 
the  vernacular  tongue  of  those  for  whom  the  ver- 
sion is  designed,  with  the  least  possible  obscurity 
or  indefiniteness. 

"  2.  The  common  English  version  must  be 
made  the  basis  of  revision,  and  all  unnecessary 
interference  with  the  established  phraseology 
shall  be  avoided ;  and  only  such  alterations  shall 
be  made  as  the  exact  meaning  of  the  inspired 
text  and  the  existing  state  of  the  language  may 
require." 

And  then,  after  commenting  on  these  rules,  he 
says  :  "It  must  be  seen,  therefore,  that  the  Bible 


72       IMMERSIONISTS   AGAINST    THE    BIBLE. 

Union  have  never  joined  issue  with  their  oppo- 
nents on  this  point,  as  constituting  any  essential 
or  determined  part  in  the  grand  enterprise  of 
revision.'^ 

Now,  we  consider  the  inference  thus  drawn 
from  the  rules  as  bj  no  means  legitimate ;  for, 
although  they  do  not  in  so  many  words  require 
the  substitution  of  immerse  for  haptize,  yet 
they  do  not  prohibit  it  directly  or  indirectly; 
and  the  translators  may  therefore  put  wimerse  in 
the  place  of  baptize  in  perfect  conformity  with 
the  rules.  And  that  this  will  be  done  is  inferred 
from  a  quotation  from  Dr.  Kendrick,  in  this  very 
tract,  as  authority  for  the  revision  movement : 
^'It  is  thought  that  the  English  Scriptures  are 
understood  on  the  subject  of  baptism.  This  is  a 
mistake.  The  few  who  are  acquainted  with  Bap- 
tist principles  understand  them ;  but  the  mass  of 
the  people  do  not.  A  translation  of  the  word 
baptizo,  and  a  general  circulation  of  the  Scrip- 
tures with  such  a  translation,  would  do  more 
than  all  other  books  to  enlighten  the  masses  on 
the  subject.^ ^ 


IMMERSIONISTS    AGAINST    THE    BIBLE.        73 

How  does  the  positive  denial  above  quoted  and 
this  quotation,  setting  forth  one  main  object  of 
the  movement;  agree  together  ?  Let  the  candid 
reader  determine. 

.  Take  another  specimen  of  the  game  of  Jesuit- 
ism they  are  trying  to  play  in  their  effort  to  evade 
the  main  issue. 

Dr.  Williams,  of  New  York,  one  of  the  most 
eminent  Baptist  ministers  in  the  world,  wrote,  in 
behalf  of  his  church,  a  letter  to  the  American 
Bible  Union,  in  reply  to  a  request  sent  the 
church  by  the  Union  '^  for  prayer  and  aid." 
The  letter  is  published  in  Tract  No.  10,  by  the 
Union,  in  connection  with  their  reply  to  it 
through  Dr.  Cone  and  others.  Here  is  Dr.  Wil- 
liams's opinion  of  ^'tlie  main  deslgnJ' 

"  The  alteration  most  sought  by  some  esteemed 
brethren  among  you  was  in  the  word  describing 
the  first  ordinance  of  the  Christian  Church.  And 
by  laying  down,  as  your  Society  is  said  by  its 
friends  and  ofl&cers  to  have  laid  it  down,  that  the 
rendering  of  the  Greek  word  for  baj^tism  by 
another  one  is  no  longer  held  ^an  open  ques 
7      . 


74       IMMERSIONISTS    AGAINST    THE    BIBLE. 

tion/  but  that,  in  effect,  immerse  must  take  the 
place  of  hajitize,  does  not  your  enterprise  incur 
the  very  censure  which  your  advocates  cast  upon 
King  James  for  his  instructions  to  transktors? 
You  limit  the  consciences  and  restrain  the  un- 
fettered judgment  of  your  revisors." 

Here  is  the  answer  of  the  Bible  Union  to  this^ 
with  Dr.  Cone's  name  to  it  as  chairman  of  the 
committee  who  drew  it  up :  "To  say  that  we 
limit  the  consciences  and  restrain  the  unfettered 
judgment  of  our  revisers,  ...  is  to  assert  what 
you  cannot  prove,  and  to  testify  to  what  you  have 
no  reason  to  believe.  .  .  .  Your  charge  against 
the  Bible  Union  on  this  point  is  as  unfounded 
as  it  is  unjust;  and  we  cannot  resist  the  convic- 
tion that  the  cause  which  arrays  its  ablest  advo- 
cates, armed  with  bold  assertions,  against  the 
plain  documentary  evidence  of  undeniable  facts, 
must  be  at  war  with  truth. '^ 

But,  strange  to  say,  in  the  same  tract  in  which 
this  language  is  used,  they  most  clearly  admit  all 
that  Dr.  Williams  has  charged.  Dr.  Williams  in 
his  letter  had  quoted  Dr.  Carson  against  revision. 


IMMERSIONISTS   AGAINST    THE   BIBLE.        iO 

They  quote  from  Dr.  Carson^  iu  order  to  sliow 
that  he  was  in  favor  of  it,  as  follows :  "  Luke 
xi.  08.  He  says,  'The  passage  there  ought  to 
have  been  translated — "  And  when  the  Pharisee 
saw  it,  he  marvelled  that  he  was  not  immersed 
before  dinner/' '  Speaking  of  Mark  vii.  4, 
where  our  version  has,  '  Except  they  wash  they 
eat  not,'  Carson  saj^s  it  ought  to  have  been  trans- 
lated, '  Except  they  dip  themselves  they  eat  not.' 
And  what  our  version  renders  ^ ic ashing s,'  he  says 
ought  to  be  translated  ^  immersions.^  Speaking 
of  those  who  understand  only  the  English  lan- 
guage, he  says,  '  They  do  not  understand  the 
original,  and  the  adoption  of  the  words  baptize 
and  baptism  can  teach  them  nothing.  Trans- 
lators, by  adopting  the  Greek  word,  have  con- 
trived to  hide  the  meaning  from  the  unlearned.'  " 
Here  they  adduce  Carson  as  in  favor  of  re- 
vision ;  but  how  is  Carson  in  favor  of  revision,  if, 
as  they  say,  the  putting  of  immerse  in  the  place 
of  baptize  constitutes  no  part  of  the  revision 
enterprise?  for  all  they  quote  from  Carson 
relates,   to   that  very  thing.      Out  of  their  own 


76       IMMERSIONISTS   AGAINST    THE    BIBLE. 

mouths,  therefore,  I  prove  that  the  disclaimer 
above  quoted  is  utterly  false. 

Again,  in  the  same  series  of  Tracts,  No.  G,  en- 
titled, ''The  Bible  Union^s  plan  of  Revision 
vindicated,^-  by  J.  W.  Lynd,  D.  D.,  the  author 
shows  the  importance  and  necessity  of  revision  by 
exhibiting  the  benefits  which  will  flow  from  it. 
One  among  the  number  of  these  "henejits"  (?)  is, 
according  to  Dr.  Lynd,  that  immerse  will  take  the 
place  of  baptize.     Hear  him  : 

"  I  will  give  another  instance  in  the  word  ^  bap- 
tize.^ There  can  be  no  doubt  that  this  word,  in 
English  religious  literature,  has  become  generic. 
It  would  be  time  lost,  on  this  occasion,  to  argue 
this  point  with  any  one  who  may  be  bold  enough  to 
deny  it.  The  word  is  currently  used  for  sprink- 
ling by  the  largest  part  of  the  Christian  world. 
It  may  be  said  that  this  is  a  wrong  use  of  the 
word ;  but  that  does  not  change  the  fact.  Bap- 
tists use  it  to  signify  immersion  only ;  but  Bap- 
tists cannot  change  the  literature  of  English 
Christendom.  I  ought,  perhaps,  to  except  a  few, 
who  hold  that  bapti7:o  has  no  representative  in 


IMMERSIOXISTS  AGAINST    THE   BIBLE.        /  / 

the  EngiisJi  language,  aud  tliat  it  does  not  mean 
tx)  purify,  to  sprinMe,  to  pour,  or  to  immerse,  but 
to  baptize.  With  this  exception,  the  Baptist  op- 
ponents of  revision,  among  all  evangelical  Chris- 
tians of  this  country,  stand  alone  as  to  the  defini- 
tiveness  of  the  English  word  baptize.  All  the 
Pedobaptists,  all  revisionists,  regard  its  present 
use  a.s  generic.  And  yet,  most  strange  to  say, 
they  wish  to  retain  baptize,  and  restore  its  original 
meaning,  not  perceiving  their  own  full  admission 
that  its  present  use  is  generic. 

"  If  the  Greek  word  baptizo  mean  immerse — 
if  the  authority  of  good  scholarship  is  on  this 
side,  the  English  reader  should  have  the  benefit 
of  such  a  rendering,  and  those  who  practice  dif- 
ferently should  have  the  privilege  of  sustaining 
their  practice  by  their  own  opinion  of  the  origi- 
nal word. 

'^Let  such  a  revision,  sustained  by  proper 
authority,  go  forth  to  the  world,  aud  the  design 
of  the  ordinance  will  be  more  clearly  seen.  As 
that  is  understood,  it  will  sweep  away  the  error 
of  baptizing  unconscious  babes.  ^Buried  with 
7* 


78       IMMERSIONISTS   AGAINST   THE   BIBLE. 

him  by  immersiou  into  death/  will  then  express 
to  the  minds  of  men  what  before  they  could  not 
conceive.'^ 

What  does  this  extract  show  ?  Certainly  that 
baptize  is  to  be  turned  out  of  the  New  Testament, 
Decause  it  is  a  generic  word ;  and  imnicrse  must 
be  put  in  its  place,  because  it  is  specific. 

Is  it  likely  that  Dr.  Lynd  is  ignorant  of  the 
design  of  the  movement  ? 

It  will  be  satisfactory  to  give  quotations  from 
eminent  Baptist  ministers  who  are  opposed  to 
this  movement.  And  it  is  a  remarkable  fact  that 
the  large  majority  of  the  most  learned  and  gifted 
ministers  of  the  Baptist  Church  in  this  country, 
and  perhaps  in  Europe,  are  most  violently  opposed 
to  this  movement.  This  fact  of  itself  should  have 
great  influence  with  Baptists  as  regards  the 
merits  of  the  movement. 

In  a  pamphlet  written  by  John  Bowling,  D.D., 
and  entitled  ^^The  Old-fashioned  Bihle,^'  he  uses 
the  following  language :  "  Various  other  correc- 
tions of  the  text  have  been  recommended  in  the 
proposed  'New  Version/      Believing,  however. 


IMMERSIONISTS   AGAINST    THE   BIBLE.        79 

most  firmly  as  I  do,  that  these  suggestions  have 
been  put  in  only  as  makeic eights ^  in  order  to  ai(i 
the  great  object  of  the  substitution  of  'immerse' 
for  '  baptize/  I  shall  not  on  the  present  occasion 
enter  into  any  examination  of  the  correctness  of 
these  criticisms/' — p.  10. 

'^  I  shall  now  proceed,  therefore,  to  state  my 
reasons  why  we  should  oppose  the  publication,  by 
this  great  denominational  Society,  [the  American 
and  Foreign  Bible  Society,]  of  a  version  of  the 
English  Scriptures,  the  distinguishing  feature  of 
which  should  be  the  substitution  of  immerse  for 
haptize  wherever  it  occurs  in  the  Xew  Testa- 
ment.^' — p.  13. 

•  Dr.  Dowling  gives  as  the  fourth  reason  why  he 
is  opposed  to  a  new  version  with  the  word  im- 
merse substituted  for  haptize,  ''Because  the  word 
haptize  is  itself,  to  all  intents  and  purposes,  an 
English  wordJ' — p.  20. 

"  But  turn  the  words  haptize,  and  haptism,  and 
Baptist  out  of  the  Bible,  and  what  becomes  of 
the  authority  for  our  name  ?  "We  are  Baptists  no 
longer,  for  we  repudiate  the  very  word ;  nor  can 


so       IMMERSIONISTS    AGAINST    THE    BIBLE. 

we  with  the  slightest  show  of  consistency  expel 
the  word  from  our  Bible,  and  then  cling  to  it  as 
the  name  of  our  denomination. 

"  Once  more,  then,  I  repeat,  if  you  expel  this 
word  from  your  Bible  you  must  give  up  the  name 
of  your  sect ;  and  if  you  refuse  to  do  this,  other 
denominations  will  do  it  for  you.  You  must  call 
yourselves  Immersers;  or  if  that,  too,  is  rejected 
because  it  is  a  transferred  word,  then  you  must 
call  yourselves  Dippers." — pp.  32,  33. 

Rev.  Dr.  Fuller  says  :  "  The  moment  we  resort 
to  a  new  translation,  we  sacrifice  the  whole  argu- 
ment, and  virtually  say,  as  the  book  now  is  we 
cannot  make  out  our  cause  :  we  must,  therefore, 
follow  the  Campbellites,  and  the  Socinians,  and 
others,  and  make  a  Bible  to  suit  ourselves.'' 

Kev.  Dr.  Malcolm,  as  quoted  by  Dr.  Dowling : 
^^  Were  I  to  utter  all  the  objections  which  occur 
to  me  as  to  the  proposed  ^Version/  (I)  I  should 
want  a  week  for  it.  When  the  world  is  allov/ed 
to  say  that  lae  needed,  as  Baptists,  a  New  Version, 
to  sustain  ourselves,  then  is  our  right  arm  broken 
in  the  fight.     I  can  add  no  more  than  to  say,  1 


IMMERSIONISTS   AGAINST   THE   BIBLE.       81 

shall  spurn  from  me  the  proposed  publicatioD,  and 
the  Society  which  gives  it  birth." 

Rev.  Dr.  Hague  says :  ^'  If  we  should  accom- 
plish the  proposed  purpose,  and  change  the  word 
hajptize  into  immerse,  and  should  win  the  suf- 
frages of  the  world,  in  a  few  years  we  should 
have  to  do  the  same  thing,  and  make  new 
changes.'^ 

I  might  add  many  additional  quotations  from 
the  most  distinguished  Baptist  ministers  in  the 
world,  in  which  they  express  their  unqualified 
opposition  to  the  movement ;  and  the  prime 
reason  of  their  opposition  is  declared  to  be  that 
the  design  of  the  moverbent  is  to  put  immerse  in 
the  New  Testament  in  the  place  of  haiytize,  and 
that  this  is  the  main  design. 

The  disclaimer  of  the  main  design  contained 
in  the  extract  we  have  made  from  Tract  No.  10, 
containing  Dr.  Williams's  letter  against  revision, 
and  the  reply  of  the  Bible  Union  to  that  letter, 
was  drawn  up  by  Dr.  Cone  as  chairman  of  the 
committee.  The  reader  will  have  seen  that 
Dr.  Williams  is  substantially  charged  with  false- 


82       IMMERSIONISTS    AGAINST    THE   BIBLE. 

hood  in  saying  that  the  main  design  of  the  move- 
ment is  to  put  immerse  in  the  place  of  hajptize. 
Now,  in  what  light  does  this  disclaimer  place 
Dr.  Cone  and  the  Union  ? 

This  same  Dr.  Cone  said,  in  1842,  "  Our  only 
business  is  to  uphold  immersionist  versions.  This 
single  object  is  our  rallying-point.'^ 

This  same  Doctor  said,  in  1849,  *^Let  a  Bible 
Society  like  the  American  and  Foreign  dare  to 
say  that  hajytizo  means  to  immersey  and  stamp 
their  conviction  upon  the  New  Testament,''  etc. 

The  same  gentleman,  in  1850,  before  the 
American  Bible  Union  :  '^Brethren  and  friends 
of  immersionist  versions  of  the  Scriptures  in  all 
languages,  and  esjjpecially  in  the  English,  the 
American  and  Foreign  Bible  Society  was  organ- 
ized to  vindicate  a  principle:  ...  in  ac- 
cordance with  this  principle,  haptizo  should  be 
rendered  by  words  signifying  immerse,  immei^- 
sion,''  etc. 

The  same  man,  in  1851 :  ^'The  American  Bible 
Union  must  come  up  to  the  help  of  the  Lord 
against  the  mighty;  .   .   .  and  show  to  all  who 


IMMERSIONISTS    AGAINST   THE    BIBLE.        83 

understand  our  language,  that  baptism  is  immer- 
sion ONLY.  ...  If  it  is  right  to  preach  it,  it  is 
right  to  print  it — TO  PRINT  IT  IN  THE  Bible/' 

The  same  person,  in  1852  :  "  Having  directed 
their  missionaries  among  the  heathen  to  transhite 
haptizo  and  its  cognates  by  words  signifying  im- 
merse, immersion,  etc.,  they  cannot  be  so  incon- 
sistent as  to  despise  or  reject  immersion  in  their 
own  vernacular  tongue." 

Hear  him  in  1853  :  "  In  revising  the  com- 
monly received  version,  the  real  point  of  contro- 
versy between  us  and  the  anti-revisionists  is  the 
question  whether  haptizo  shall  be  translated  or 
not.'' 

And  yet,  this  same  Dr.  S.  H.  Cone  assists  in 
getting  up  a  paper  in  reply  to  Dr.  "Williams,  and 
puts  his  name  to  it  as  chairman,  and  sends  it 
abroad  to  the  world,  denying  most  absolutely  what 
he  has  so  often,  and  in  so  many  different  forms, 
declared  most  positively  and  unequivocally  to  be 
true ! 

And  Dr.  Cone  is  not  peculiar  among  the  ad- 
vocates of  this,  "  the  greatest  enterprise  of  the 


84       IMMERSIONISTS    AGAINST    THE   BIBLE. 

age/'  for  tliis  ^'hloioing  liot  and  cold  out  of  the 
same  mouth."  It  is  a  distinctive  feature  in  the 
tactics  of  tlie  movement.  It  affords  a  most  im- 
pressive illustration  of  the  recklessness  into  which 
even  good  men  may  be  led  in  the  advocacy  of  an 
ultra  measure. 

A  good  cause  does  not  need  such  expedients. 
It  will  always  be  prejudiced  by  their  adoption. 
The  cause  which  demands  such  aid  must  be  a 
bad  one.  Truth  suffers  nothing  by  being  fully 
and  fairly  exposed.  On  the  contrary,  it  will 
always  be  the  gainer  by  such  exposure.  Men 
who  are  satisfied  of  the  goodness  of  their  cause 
are  naturally  inclined  to  defend  it  on  its  own 
merits.  They  will  not  be  afraid  to  do  so.  They 
will  prefer  such  a  course,  as  a  matter  of  policy, 
if  for  nothing  else.  If  these  sentiments  be  cor- 
rect, we  infer  that  the  revision  movement  is  a  bad 
cause,  and  that  its  advocates  have  not  full  confi- 
dence in  it.  They  do  not  expect  to  succeed  by  a 
fair  and  candid  course.  They  consequently  do 
not  attempt  it. 

In  reading  their  publications,  it  is  very  evident 


IMMERSIONISTS   AGAINST    THE   BIBLE.        85 

that,  they  were  much  more  candid  in  announcing 
the  main  design  in  the  outset  of  the  movement 
than  at  present.  Public  sentiment  came  down 
upon  them  "with  such  tremendous  power"  that 
they  became  frightened ;  and  they  have  deemed 
it  good  policy  to  change  the  mode  of  operation, 
so  as  to  keep  the  main  design  more  in  the  back- 
ground; and  the  Jesuitical  course  now  adopted  is 
the  result. 

"  The  old-fashioned  Bible/'  as  we  still  have  it, 
very  justly  declares  that  "  He  that  doeth  truth 
Cometh  to  the  light,  that  his  deeds  may  be  made 
manifest  that  they  are  wrought  in  Grod.'^  But 
"Every  one  that  doeth  evil  hateth  the  light, 
neither  cometh  to  the  light,  lest  his  deeds  should 
be  reproved/' 

The  fact  is,  as  is  apparent  to  every  one  ac- 
quainted with  the  history  of  this  movement,  it  is 
a  last  resort  to  sustain  the  sinking  cause  of  im- 
mersion. The  advocates  of  "  dip  and  nothing 
but  dip"  have  found  that  the  commonly  received 
version  does  not  sustain  them;  and  therefore 
they  must  either  give  up  this  strange  dogma,  and 


86       IMMERSIONISTS   AGAINST   THE   BIBLE. 

others  connected  with  it,  or  they  must  have  a 
new  version.  They  must  have  a  Bible  to  suit 
themselves,  as  other  fanatical  ultraists  have. 
They  acknowledge  that  the  Bible,  the  diction- 
aries, the  commentaries,  the  doctors,  and  a  ma- 
jority of  the  so-called  Christian  world,  are  against 
them;  and  they  are  constrained  to  do  something; 
and  the  plan  is  to  begin  by  reforming  the  Bible ; 
and  then,  perhaps,  they  will  proceed  to  reform 
every  thing  else  that  does  not  accord  with  their 
peculiar  notion  of  ^'  dip,  and  nothing  but  dip." 
They  have  truly  a  Herculean  task  before  them  ; 
but  then,  what  cannot  men  do  with  but  one  single 
idea  to  tax  their  powers  ? 


IMMERSIONISTS   AGAINST   THE   BIBLE.       87 


CHAPTER    Y. 

THE    TACTICS    OP    THE    IMOVEMENT. 

An  expedient  adopted  by  the  advocates  of 
this  movement  is  the  representation  that  a  large 
number  of  the  learned  men  (?)  engaged  in 
the  work  of  revision  are  Pedobaptists,  The  de- 
sign of  this  is  to  make  the  impression  that  the 
movement  is  catholic  and  not  sectarian.  A^d 
this  statement  is  made  so  as  to  make  the  impres- 
sion upon  those  not  posted  up  in  the  matter, 
not  that  individuals  belonging  to  Pedobaptist 
Churches,  upon  their  own  individual  responsi- 
bility, are  in  the  employ  of  the  American  Bible 
Union  as  revisers,  but  that  they  are  thus  engaged 
by  the  countenance  and  even  approval  of  the 
Churches  to  which  they  belong.  And  these 
statements  are  made  not  merely  by  the  subordi- 
nate and  inferior  apologists  of  the  movement,  but 


88       IMMERSIONISTS   AGAINST   THE   BIBLE. 

even  by  the  leaders  in  the  enterprise,  and  by  the 
American  Bible  Union  itself  officially. 

I  quote  the  following  from  a  speech  of  the 
Kev.  J.  S.  Backus,  delivered  before  the  American 
Bible  Union  at  its  fifth  anniversary,  1855,  (Bible 
Union  Keporter,  p.  91,)  and  of  course  endorsed 
and  published  by  the  Union  : 

"  I  like  the  revision  movement,  because  of  its 
non-sectarian  character. 

^^All  denominations  of  Christians  would  not 
unite  to  revise  the  Scriptures,  and  no  one  denomi- 
nation could  have  undertaken  it  alone,  without 
exciting  the  jealousy  of  others,  and  having  all 
their  prejudices  arrayed  against  the  work  as  a 
sectarian  thing,  however  faithfully  done.  But 
the  Bible  Union  movement  is  not  a  denominational 
movement,"  etc. 

Now,  let  the  reader  recur  to  the  mass  of  evi- 
dence already  adduced,  proving  most  conclusively 
the  falsity  of  this  statement,  and  he  will  have 
an  exhibition  of  a  case  of  as  unscrupulous  and 
glaring  effrontery  as  was  ever  practiced  in  the 
whole   history  of   Jesuitism.      Sometimes    they 


rMMERSIONISTS   AGAINST    THE   BIBLE.       89 

strive  to  make  the  impression  that  all  denomina- 
tions of  Christians  are  united  in  the  movement ; 
and  then  none — not  even  their  own — is  engaged 

ill  li;  ; 

Listen  to  the  following  from  the  Union's  '^Ad- 
dress for  Prayer  and  Aid/'  signed  by  Dr.  Cone  as 
President,  and  published  in  the  Bible  Union  Re- 
porter for  January,  1854 :  '^  Distinguished  scholars 
are  employed  by  the  American  Bible  Union  in 
the  revision  of  the  common  version,  holding 
their  ecclesiastical  connections  with  eight  deno- 
minations :  Church  of  England;  Old  School 
Preshytericins ;  Discij^les,  or  Reformers ;  Asso- 
ciate Reformed  Presbyterians;  Seventh-Day 
Baptists;  American  Protestant  Episcopalians ; 
Bap)tists ;    German  Reformed  Church. 

"Written  contracts  have  been  made  with  more 
than  twenty  scholars;  and  many  of  these,  in  com- 
pliance with  the  stipulations,  have  made  engage- 
ments with  others  to  work  with  them,  so  that  the 
number  of  scholars  actually  engaged  in  the  ser- 
vice of  the  Union  does  not  vary  far  from  forty. 

"  More  than  half  the  work  already  done  has 


90       IMMERSIONISTS    AGAINST    THE   BIBLE. 

been  performed  by  scholars  not  connected  with 
immersionist  denominations;  and  we  anticipate 
that  this  will  hold  true  until  the  New  Testament 
is  finished. 

'^  Seven  of  the  revisors  under  written  contract 
reside  in  Great  Britain,  and  three  of  these  are 
connected  with  the  Church  of  England.'' 

In  the  Reporter  of  April,  1855,  I  find  the 
Methodist  Church  in  the  list  of  the  Churches 
from  which  the  translators  are  selected.  • 

The  design  of  the  publication  from  which  the 
above  extract  is  taken,  is  to  make  the  impression 
that  the  movement  is  not  denominational  or  sec- 
tarian, but  that  all  the  evangelical  denominations 
are  engaged  in  it,  as  well  as  some  that  are  not 
evangelical. 

There  is  no  intimation  that  though  individuals 
from  nine  denominations  are  engaged  as  trans- 
lators, yet  only  in  the  case  of  those  from  the  Bap- 
tists, Disciples,  and  Seventh-Day  Baptists,  can 
any  one  of  them  represent  the  denomination  to 
which  he  belongs.  And  the  fact,  therefore,  that 
they  have  translators  from  these  six  Pedobaptist 


IMMERSIONISTS    AGAINST    THE   BIBLE.        91 

denominations  does  not  aiFect  in  the  slightest 
degree  the  sectarian  immersionist  character  of 
the  movement.  For  who  began  the  movement? 
Baptists  and  Campbellites.  Who  have  been  the 
officers  of  the  xlmerican  and  Foreign  Bible  So- 
ciety, and  of  the  American  Bible  Union,  up  to 
this  time  ?  Why,  none  but  Baptists  and  Camp- 
bellites. And,  therefore,  these  Pedobaptist  trans- 
lators are  employed  by  Baptists  and  Campbellites 
to  do  their  work.  They  "are  employed  under 
written  contract ''  They  are  getting  well  paid, 
perhaps,  for  the  work  they  are  doing. 

But  let  us  see  what  Dr.  Cone  thought  about 
getting  Pedobaptist  aid  in  1839.  Listen  to  him  : 
"Well  knowing  that  in  such  an  undertaking  we 
must  stand  alone,  and  could  hope  for  no  assist- 
ance from  Pedobaptists,  whose  denominational 
existence  depends  upon  the  non-translation  of 
those  words  in  the  New  Testament  which  relate 
to  the  ordinance  of  baptism." 

According  to  the  "Address  for  Prayer  and 
Aid,"  Dr.  Cone  did  not  knoiv  so  well  as  he 
thou2;ht  he  did  when  he  uttered  this  lancfuao-e. 


92       IMMERSIONISTS   AGAINST    THE   BIBLE. 

He  thought  in  1839  that  the  immersion ists  must 
stand  alone.  Now  he  finds  men  from  six  of  the 
Pedobaptist  denominations  standing  side  by  side 
with  the  Union  ;  yea,  are  actually  employed  under 
luritten  contract  in  doing  the  great  work  of  re- 
vision !  Indeed,  they  are  destined  to  do  the 
greater  part  of  it !  Well,  indeed,  the  state 
of  things  is  much  better  than  could  have  been 
expected.  But  how  are  we  to  account  for  this 
wonderful  result?  Have  these  worthy  Pedo- 
baptist divines  and  scholars  found  that  they  can 
engage  in  this  work  without  demolishing  the  de- 
nominational existence  of  the  Churches  to  which 
they  belong  ?  Have  they  become  convinced  that 
they  can  assist  in  making  the  immersionists  a 
Bible  to  suit  them,  and  yet  compromise  no  prin- 
ciple— especially  as  they  are  getting  good  salaries 
for  their  learned  and  pious  labor  ?  Or  is  it  a  fact, 
that  their  pecuniary  necessities  arc  so  pressing  that 
they  are  reconciled  to  dispense  with  conscience 
and  principle  for  a  season,  that  they  may  make 
a  little  to  save  them  from  want  ?  Here  is  a  dit- 
ficulty  which  the  ethics  we  have  learned  from  ''  the 


IMMERSIONISTS    AGAINST    THE    BIBLE.        93 

old-fashioned  BihW  will  not  enable  us  to  solve 
favorably  to  tliese  Pedobaptist  translators,  we 
fear,  with  the  light  we  have  in  regard  to  their  case. 

Butj  seeing  that  Dr.  Cone  has  been  so  egregi- 
ously  mistaken  in  his  calculations  as  to  the  rela- 
tion the  Pedobaptists  would  sustain  to  this  move- 
ment, let  us  see  if  another  of  the  great  leaders 
has  not  been  equally  so.  Dr.  Cone  was  the 
President  of  the  American  Bible  Union.  I 
quote  from  one  of  the  Vice-Presidents,  Mr.  A. 
Campbell,  in  his  address  to  the  Bible  Convention 
at  Memphis,  Tenn.,  as  published  in  the  Millennial 
Harbinger  for  June,  1852.     Hear  him  : 

"I  am  fully  of  the  opinion  that  those  prac- 
ticing the  immersion  of  believers  are  the  only 
people  that  can  make  a  really  valuable  and  faith- 
ful translation  of  the  New  Testament.  They 
have  in  Protestant  Christendom  the  only  com- 
manding and  favorable  stand-point  for  such  a 
work.  Their  eyes  are  couched.  They  can  see 
what  no  man  looking  through  the  leather  spec- 
tacles of  Pedobaptism  and  Pedo-rantism  can  see 
in  the  Christian  institution.    I  speak  experiment- 


94       IMMERSIONISTS   AGAINST    THE    BIBLE. 

ally  as  well  as  theoretically,  having  been  on  the 
top  of  Mount  Sinai  before  I  stood  upon  the  top 
of  Mount  Zion.  I  know  the  horizon  of  both 
these  time -honored  summits.  I  therefore  silence 
all  cavil  as  to  their  incompetency,  and  strongly 
declare  the  conviction  that  they,  and  they  only, 
can  furnish  a  version  worthy  of  the  age." 
"Pcdohajjtists  and  Baptists  will  never  agree  to 
make  a  neio  version.  Not  one  Pedobaptist  will 
touch  the  ark  of  our  sanctuary,  fearing  he  might 
be  stricken  dead.  Why  should  he  ?  How  could 
he  ?  It  would  be  suicidal  on  his  part  to  raise  the 
tower  that  would  certainly  fall  upon  himself.  If 
an  angel  in  disguise  should  substitute  immerse 
for  haijti?:e,  he  would  say  he  came  not  from  the 
skies.  He  would  not,  true  to  his  party,  improve 
the  volume  in  any  thing  that  would  crush  him  in 
every  thing  dear  to  him  as  a  Pedobaptist.  Such 
politicians  form  no  such  entangling  alliances. 
While  it  is  a  show  of  generosity  or  catholicity  on 
our  part  to  invite  him,  he  will,  with  all  complai- 
sance, say,  with  one  of  olden  time,  ^  I  pray  you, 
sir,  have  me  excused.'     None  but  immersionists 


IMMERSIOXISTS    AGAINST    THE    BIBLE.        9o 

can  unite  in  this  work,  and  none  but  they  could 
do  justice  to  the  subject." 

Let  the  reader  compare  the  above  with  the 
language  of  the  ' 'Address  for  Praj-er  and  Aid/' 
and  it  will  appear  that  Mr.  Campbell  has  been  as 
much  mistaken  in  his  calculations  as  the  Presi- 
dent, Dr.  Cone. 

And  what  makes  the  blunder  of  Mr.  Campbell 
the  more  remarkable  is,  that  it  has  been  com- 
mitted very  recently — only  about  two  years  ago. 
Mr.  Campbell  himself,  it  is  believed,  is  one  of  the 
translators.  And  at  the  time  this  Ian2:ua2:e  was 
uttered,  some  at  least  of  these  Icatlicr-spectaded 
men  were  in  the  employ  of  the  Union  as  trans- 
lators. It  is  very  strange  that  he  should  not  have 
been  aware  that  he  had  some  of  these  Vlind 
gentlemen  as  his  colleagues  in  making  "  a  trans- 
lation worthy  of  the  age  J' 

"PedobajJtisfs  and  Baptists  icill  never  agree  to 
*nake  a  neiv  version,"  says  Mr.  Campbell.  But 
they  have  agreed  to  do  so,  according  to  the 
American  Bible  Union,  through  Dr.  Cone  and 
others  of  her  advocates.     "  Not  one  Pedobaptist 


96       IMMERSIONISTS   AGAINST   THE   BIBLE. 

will  touch  the  ark  of  our  sanctuary,  fearing 
he  might  be  stricken  dead/'  Yet  not  one  but 
many^  reckless  of  the  bolt  that  may  strike  them 
^^  dead,^'  are  not  only  touching  the  Baptist  ark, 
according  to  the  advocates  of  the  movement,  but 
have  hold  of  it  with  both  hands,  and  are,  indeed, 
chiefly  concerned  in  securing  for  it  a  destination 
in  the  loater,  which  its  friends  so  much  desire. 
''  Why  should  he  V  asks  Mr.  Campbell.  Why, 
in  order  to  get  the  money,  if  for  nothing  else. 
^^  How  could  he  ?''  he  asks  again.  Why,  simply 
by  spurning  all  the  dictates  of  honor  and  princi- 
ple, and  submitting  to  the  dictates,  not,  it  is  true, 
of  King  James  or  the  bishops,  but  of  the  Ame- 
rican Bible  Union.  ^^  It  would  be  suicidal  on 
his  part  to  raise  the  tower  that  would  certainly 
fall  upon  himself.'^  And  yet  Pedobaptists  are 
not  only  assisting  to  raise  the  tower  that  shall 
elevate  the  immersionists,  as  they  fondly  hope, 
into  the  heaven  of  ecclesiastical  exclusiveness, 
but  they  are  chiefly  concerned  in  the  erection  of 
the  tower,  though  it  may  fall  on  them  and  break 
their  ecclesiastical  heads.     ^^  If  an  angel  in  dis- 


IMMERSIONISTS    AGAINST    THE    BIBLE.        97 

guise  should  substitute  immerse  for  haptize,  he 
would  say  he  came  not  from  the  skies/'  But  he 
is  not  going  to  stand  off  and  await  the  contin- 
gency referred  to.  He  is  engaged  in  helping  to 
put  immerse  for  baptize.  He  is  not  going  to  wait 
for  an  angel  to  do  it.  "  He  would  not,  true  to 
his  party,  improve  the  volume  in  any  thing  that 
would  crush  him  in  every  thing  dear  to  him  as  a 
Pedobaptist."  Yet  he  has  engaged  in  what  is 
claimed  to  be  an  effort  to  improve  the  volume,  at 
least  to  make  it  teach  immersion  for  baptism, 
whether  it  "  c7nisJi€s  Jiim"  in  every  thing  dear  to 
him  as  a  Pedobaptist,  or  in  any  thing,  or  not.  It 
is  not  likely  that  those  Pedobaptists  engaged  in 
this  work  hold  aji^  thing  that  they  claim  to 
believe  or  practice  of  such  worth  that  they  would 
not  be  willing  to  sell  it  for  money.  For  some 
reason  these  Pedobaptists  are  willing  to  be 
crushed.  "  Such  politicians  form  no  such  entan- 
gling alliances."  And  yet,  according  to  the 
address,  they  have  formed  just  such  an  alliance. 
"While  it  is  a  show  of  generosity  or  catholicity 
on  our  part  to  invite  him,  he  will,  with  all  com- 


98        IMMERSIONISTS    AGAINST    THE    BIBLE. 

plaisance,  say,  with  one  of  olden  time,  'I  pray 
you,  sir,  have  me  excused/  ^'  But,  according  to 
the  address  of  the  Union,  there  are  Pedobaptists 
who  have  not  asked  to  be  excused.  For  the  sake 
of  the  money,  they  have  entered  into  ^^  written 
contract'^  to  ^^  come  up  to  the  help  of  the  Lord 
against  the  mighty,"  in  this  enterprise. 

The  h^'-pocritical  ''  shoiv  of  generouty  or  catlio- 
licity''^  spoken  of  by  Mr.  Campbell  might  have 
been  spared.  They  might  have  invited  Pedo- 
baptists candidly  and  sincerely^  had  they  known 
they  could  have  been  bought  for  money. 

These  men,  according  to  Mr,  Campbell  and 
the  address,  have  turned  traitors,  for  some  con- 
sideration deemed  by  them  of  more  value  than 
the  interests  of  their  party ;  and  I  suppose  it  must 
be  the  money  they  get.  The  love  of  money  was 
so  strong  in  Judas,  that  even  for  the  small  sum 
of  '^  thirty  pieces  of  silver"  he  sold  his  Master  to 
his  enemies.  And  as  human  nature,  under 
similar  circumstances,  is  the  same  in  all  ages, 
there  are,  no  doubt,  men  in  Pedobaptist  Churches 
who  would  be  willing  to  sell  the  interests  of  tbeir 


IMMERSIONISTS    AGAINST   THE    BIBLE.       99 

painty  for  money.     And  it  is  no  reflection  upon 
Pedobaptist  Churches  to  make  this  admission. 

Mr.  Campbell  makes  the  case  still  stronger. 
He  says  :  ^'  I  am  fully  of  the  opinion  that  those 
practicing  the  immersion  of  believers  are  the  only 
people  that  can  make  a  really  valuable  transla- 
tion. They  have  .  .  .  the  only  commanding 
stand-point  for  such  a  work.  Their  eyes  are 
couched.  They  can  see  what  no  man  looking 
through  the  leather  spectacles  of  Pedobaptism 
and  Pedo-rantism  can  see  in  the  Christian  institu- 
tion." They  have  no  leather  spectacles  of  any 
kind  on.  They  can  see  well  enough  to  do  the 
work.  Mr.  Campbell  speaks  not  merely  from 
theory,  but  from  experience.  He  is  a  man  of 
experience.  He  knows  what  he  says.  He  speaks 
what  he  does  know,  and  testifies  to  what  he  has 
seen,  i.  e.,  since  his  eyes  were  ^^  couched. '^  He 
knows  from  experience  the  horizon  of  both  the 
time-honored  summits  of  Mount  Sinai  and  Mount 
Zion.  He  was  once  on  the  summit  of  Mount 
Sinai,  amidst  its  clouds  and  darkness,  with  those 
same  ^'leather  specfacJes^^  on.     But,  fortunately 


lOO    IMMERSIONISTS    AGAINST    THE   BIBLE. 

tor  Mr.  Campbell,  lie  long  ago  descended  from 
ihat  terrible  summit,  and  passed  the  Jordan,  and 
has  now  gotten  to  the  summit  of  Mount  Zion, 
leaving  his  old  "Pedohajjtist  and  Pedo-rantist 
leather  spectacles"  either  in  the  Jordan,  or  on  the 
other  side.  And  from  his  own  experience  he 
can  testify  that  none  but  those  who,  like  himself, 
have  made  this  transition  by  passing  through 
^Hhe  Jordan's  yielding  wave,''  and  getting  rid  of 
their  "  leather  spectacles,'  could  "  do  justice  to 
the  subject."  None  but  such  as  stand  with 
Mr.  Campbell  on  the  Mount  Zion  of  Immersion 
are  free  from  ignorance  and  prejudice.  None 
but  the  immersionists  are  honest  enough  to  make 
"  a  translation  worthy  of  the  age."  None  but 
they  understand  the  languages  in  which  the 
Scriptures  were  originally  written  sufficiently 
well. 

Well,  the  question  is,  how  will  they  get  along 
with  these  Pedos,  with  uncouched  eyes,  sitting 
away  off  yonder  on  the  cold  and  dark  "  Mount 
Sinai  in  Arabia,  which  gendereth  to  bondage," 
"with  their  ^^  leather  spectacles'"  over  their  eyes, 


IMMERSIONISTS    AGAINST    THE   BIBLE.     lOl 

(if  they  have  any,)  and  yet  employed,  under  pay, 
to  assist  in  doing  "  a  great  work  V^ 

The  friends  of  the  movement  must  be,  I  think, 
hard  put  to  it  to  have  to  pay  such  men  to  perform 
a  work  which  they  are  not  capable  of  performing. 

And  is  it  not  well  known  that  one  of  the  chief 
objections  to  King  James's  translation  is,  that  it 
was  made  by  Pedobaptists,  and  especially  Episco- 
palian§ — that  "  there  was  not  one  Baptist  among 
the  translators  V  And  now  the  boast  is,  that  not 
only  are  there  Pedobaptists  among  their  trans- 
lators, but  that  the  majority  of  them  are  Pedo- 
baptists, It  is  stated  in  the  ' 'Address  for  Prayer 
and  Aid,"  that  '^  more  than  half  the  work  already 
done  has  been  performed  by  scholars  not  con- 
nected with  immersiouist  denominations;  and  we 
^anticipate  that  this  will  hold  true  until  the  New 
Testament  is  finished." 

There  must  be  a  great  scarcity  of  learned  men 

among  the  advocates  of  the  movement,  that  they 

have  to  take  men  so  utterly  unsuitable  for  the 

work,  according  to  their  own  showing.      There  is 

a  question  of  morals   involved  which  demands 
9* 


102    IMMERSIONISTS    AfiATNST    THE    BIBLE. 

some  attentioD.  If  these  Pedobaptist  translators 
are  really  in  favor  of  the  main  design  of  this 
movement,  (and  are  helping  it  forward  with  all 
their  might,)  i.  e.,  ultra-immersionists,  and  j^et, 
at  the  same  time,  are  identified  with  Pedobaptist 
denominations,  professing  to  believe  in  Pedobap- 
tist doctrines,  and  conforming  to  Pedobaptist 
usages,  in  what  light  do  they  appear  in  a  moral 
point  of  view  ?  Professing  to  be  Pedobaptists  to 
the  world,  and  yet  secretly  engaged  in  helping  to 
make  a  translation  of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  on 
immersionist  and  anti-Pedobaptist  principles, 
which  shall  (as  the  advocates  of  the  movement 
contend  it  will)  overturn  every  principle  which 
they  profess  to  hold  sacred,  and  which,  in  their 
vows  of  ordination,  they  have  most  solemnly 
pledged  to  vindicate  and  teach !  w 

But  it  is  said  that  they  are  left  unrestrained  to 
make  such  a  version  as  they  believe  to  be  legiti- 
mate. But,  then,  will  not  their  work  pass  in  _ 
review  before  a  Committee  of  the  Union,  consti- 
tuted for  this  very  purpose?  Certainly  this  is 
the  case,  as  will  be  shown  in  another  place.    And 


IMMERSIONISTS   AGAINST    THE   BIBLE.     103 

if  the  work  of  these  revisors  does  not  come  up 
to  the  standard  of  a  faithful  translation,  as  re- 
gards (iaTTTL^G),  or  any  other  word,  will  they  not 
be  bound  to  make  it  do  so  ?  And  so  it  will  not 
be  their  work  at  all  which  shall  be  finally  endorsed 
by  the  American  Bible  Union,  unless  they  should 
do  it  to  suit  the  Union. 

But  it  may  be  said  again,  that  only  those  por- 
tions of  the  Scriptures  which  do  not  contain  the 
words  involving  the  issue  will  be  assigned  to 
these  ^^leather-spectacled'^  men:  that  they  will 
not  be  regarded  as  competent  to  translate  any  thing 
but  Moses  and  the  Prophets;  and  hardly  them. 
This  will  not  relieve  them  from  moral  difficulties. 
In  this  case  they  are  chargeable  with  aiding  and 
abetting  a  measure  whose  main  design  they  pro- 
fess to  condemn. 

In  any  view  that  can  be  taken  of  the  case  of 
these  men,  judging  from  what  the  advocates  of 
revision  have  said  of  them,  they  are  either  un- 
principled men,  willing  to  sell  themselves  and 
their  principles  for  money;  or  if  good  men,  in 
their  intentions  and  purposes,  they  are  very  defec- 


104    IMMERSIONISTS   AGAINST   THE   BIBLE. 

tive  in  their  views  of  moral  obligation,  and  have 
consequently  been  misled.  In  any  view  that  we 
are  able  to  take  of  their  case,  they  are  not  the 
men  to  make  a  version  of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  to 
be  the  rule  of  the  faith  and  the  practice  of  the 
Church  and  the  world.  Men  whose  views  are  so 
defective,  or  whose  consciences  are  so  elastic,  are 
not  the  men  to  be  trusted  in  a  matter  of  so  much 
importance. 

And,  strange  to  say,  the  advocates  of  this 
movement  trumpet  this  thing  abroad  with  the 
highest  degree  of  triumph,  as  a  proof  of  the  non- 
sectarian  character  of  it,  in  order  that  they  may 
gain  proselytes,  and  get  prayers  offered  in  their 
behalf,  and  secure  aid  in  money  to  help  pay  these 
very  worthy  and  consistent  gentlemen  for  the 
work  they  are  performing  ! 

But  who  are  the  translators  ?  The  names  of 
some  of  them  have  escaped  from  the  profound 
secrecy  which  had  enshrouded  them ;  but  as  to 
the  majority  of  them,  we  know  nothing.  The 
policy,  from  the  beginning,  has  been  to  observe 
the  profoundest  secrecy.     But  who  are  the  tranS; 


IMMERSIONISTS   AGAINST    THE    BIBLE.     105 

lators  ?  What  are  their  names  ?  Where  do  they 
reside  ?  Of  what  congregations  have  they  charge  ? 
Or  in  what  institutions  of  learning  are  they  em- 
ployed ? 

Dr.  Williams  thus  refers  to  this  fact : 
"And  in  giving  not  the  names  of  the  transla- 
tors whom  you  employ^  is  it  regard  to  truth  or 
expediency  that  dictates  this  remarkable  and 
mysterious  reserve?  In  the  preparation  of  the 
received  version,  the  names  of  the  learned  and 
orthodox  men  to  be  employed  were  published. 
The  Jews,  in  their  offerings  to  the  Tabernacle, 
knew  as  skilful  workmen  the  Bezaleel  and  Aho- 
liab,  who  were  to  form  from  their  gifts  the  furni- 
ture of  the  sanctuary.  When  Solomon  called 
from  Tyre  the  highly  endowed  Hiram  to  build 
the  temple,  do  we  read  that  he  introduced  the 
architect  to  the  tribes  without  a  name,  and  wear- 
ing a  mask  ?  Why  repair  the  goodly  edifice  of 
our  Scriptures  in  so  covert  a  manner  ?  You  in- 
form us  that  contracts  have  been  made  with  some 
scholars,  are  about  to  be  made  with  others,  and 
you   ask    for   funds   in    their   aid   and  support. 


106    IMMERSIONISTS   AGAINST   THE   BIBLE. 

Should  we  not  know  the  men  whom  we  thus  en- 
dorse and  sustain?  When  Paul  sent  men  to 
gather  and  bear  the  contributions  of  the  churches, 
he  presented  them  as  well-known  and  trustworthy 
— ^  the  messengers  of  the  churches  and  the  glory 
of  Christ/  If  funds  in  almsgiving  need  known 
and  approved  distributors,  do  not  the  funds  asked 
for  Scripture  translation  deserve  also  as  much 
publicity  and  reliability  in  the  case  of  men  who 
are  to  be  by  these  funds  sustained  in  work  for  the 
churches  ?  Have  we  not  a  right  to  know  whether 
the  men  who  are  to  interpret  for  us  God's  word, 
dwell  in  the  tents  and  speak  the  dialect  of  Ash- 
dod,  or  whether  they  belong  to  the  tribes  and 
speak  the  language  of  Zion?  Surely  Baptists 
have  not  been  wont  to  ask  this  implicit  confidence 
in  the  anonymous  and  unknown/' — (TractXo.lO, 
published  by  the  American  Bible  Union.) 

And  just  listen  to  the  answer  they  give  to  this, 
in  the  same  tract:  "Their  names  may  not  be 
published  at  present.  Could  their  publication 
serve  any  useful  or  important  purpose,  without 
subjecting  the  persons  themselves  to  the  relent- 


IMMERSIONISTS    AGAINST    THE   BIBLE.     107 

less  persecution  with  whicli  all  who  were  known 
to  take  any  prominent  part  in  the  work  of  revision 
have  been  followed,  there  would  be  no  objection, 
we  presume,  to  such  publicity.  But  they  are 
engaged  in  a  great  work,  and  would  not  like  to  be 
annoyed  by  the  opponents  of  revision  in  a  guer- 
illa warfare  which  has  been  waged  against  every 
man's  reputation  whom  mere  rumor  represented 
as  having  some  connection  with  the  Bible  Union." 

The  fear  of  persecution  is  given  as  the  apology 
for  this  Jesuitical  course.  What !  men  engaged 
in  so  noble  a  work  as  this  is  claimed  to  be,  and 
not  willing  to  be  persecuted  for  the  sake  of  it? 

Is  not  here  a  piece  of  the  most  consummate 
priestcraft  that  was  ever  attempted  to  be  prac- 
ticed in  a  Protestant  country?  It  almost  oiU- 
jesuits  Roman  Jesuitism  itself.  They  delibe- 
rately ask  for  ^'■prayer  and  aicV  from  Baptists 
and  others,  and,  at  the  same  time,  with  the  ut- 
most sang-froid,  refuse  to  let  it  be  kuown  whom 
they  are  to  pray  for,  or  to  aid  by  their  (ontri- 
butions ! 


108    IMMERSIONISTS   AGAIx\ST    THE   BIBLE. 


CHAPTER  YI. 

THE  TACTICS  OF  THE  MOVEMENT,  CONTINUED. 

In  the  last  two  chapters  I  have  exhibited,  in 
part,  the  tactics  of  the  advocates  of  this  move- 
ment, employed  to  divert  the  attention  of  the 
public  from  the  main  design.  I  have  quoted 
from  some  of  their  publications  a  denial,  not 
only  that  the  main  object  is  to  substitute  immerse 
for  baptize,  but  a  denial  that  such  a  substitution 
constitutes  "  any  essential  or  determined  part"  iu 
the  enterprise  :  that  ''the  Bible  Union  have  never 
joined  issue  with  their  opponents  on  this  point." 
And,  as  the  reader  will  recollect,  I  quoted,  from 
the  very  same  documents,  passages  in  which  this 
very  thing  which  they  so  positively  deny  is  ad- 
mitted— at  least,  indirectl3^  I  have  aimed  all 
the  time  to  keep  before  the  mind  of  the  reader 
the  main  design  of  the  movement,  i.  e.,  the  put- 


IMMERSIONISTS    AGAINST    THE    BIBLE.     109 

ting  of  immerse  in  the  New  Testament  in  the 
place  of  hapttze.  And  I  again  repeat,  that  this 
is  the  main  design,  unless  Drs.  Cone  and  McClay 
have  been  totally  misled  on  this  subject  from  the 
heginning  of  the  movement ;  or,  if  they  have  not 
been  misled,  they  have  wilfully  sought  to  mislead 
the  public.  We  have  noticed  the  Jesuitical  ex- 
pedient of  representing  that  a  large  proportion  of 
the  learned  men  engaged  in  the  work  of  translat- 
ing: hold  their  ecclesiastical  connections  with  Pedo- 

o 

baptist  denominations,  thereby  endeavoring  to 
mislead  the  public,  as  we  conceive,  by  making  the 
impression  that  the  forthcoming  version  is  not  to 
be  sectarian. 

"\Ye  showed  that  if  the  American  Bible  Union 
have  not  abandoned  their  original  purpose,  and 
these  Pedobaptist  scholars  are  true  to  their  eccle- 
siastical connections,  they  are  not  the  men  to  be 
employed  in  this  work  :  that,  admitting  that  the 
principles  upon  which  the  enterprise  was  begun 
are  retained,  these  Pedobaptist  learned  men  are 
acting  dishonestly.  And,  therefore,  so  far  from 
the  fact  of  these  Pedobaptists  being  employed  in 
10 


110    IMMERSIONISTS    AGAINST    THE    BIBLE. 

the  work  of  revision  being  an  argument  in  favor 
of  it,  it  is  really  one  of  the  strongest  arguments 
that  can  be  used  against  it.  In  this  chapter  I  will 
notice  another  expedient  to  hide  the  main  design 
a  little  longer.  It  is  this  :  They  have  published, 
and  are  circulating  abroad,,  parts  of  the  revision 
of  the  New  Testament,  in  which  neither  the 
word  [3a7TTL^G),  nor  any  of  its  derivatives,  occurs 
in  the  original ;  and  they  are  exhibiting  these  as 
proof  that  the  version,  when  completed,  will  not 
be  sectarian.  One  portion  of  the  work  com- 
mences with  the  Second  Epistle  of  Peter,  and 
embraces  the  book  of  Revelation  ;  the  other  por- 
tion contains  the  first  and  second  chapters  of 
Matthew.  Now,  a  much  more  natural  arrange- 
ment, as  far  as  the  first-named  portion  is  con- 
cerned, would  have  been  to  have  commenced  with 
the  Epistle  of  James,  and  then  what  are  called 
the  General  Epistles  would  have  been  embraced. 
At  least,  it  is  very  unnatural  not  to  have  eux- 
braced  the  First  Ejnstle  of  Peter.  Why  was  this 
left  out  in  this  first  specimen  of  the  new  version  ? 
Why,   simply  because    haptisma   occurs  in  this 


IMMERSI0NIST3    AGAINST    THE    BIBLE.      Ill 

epistle  in  tlie  original.  And  it  would  not  have 
suited  the  Jesuitism  of  the  movement  to  let 
the  main  design  appear  in  so  prominent  a  man- 
ner at  this  critical  period  in  its  history.  They 
can  now  exhibit  these  fragments  of  the  forth- 
coming version,  and  say,  "  See !  here  is  a  part  of 
the  new  version ;  and  you  can  examine  it  your- 
self, and  we  defy  you  to  detect  any  thing  sectarian 
in  it."  This  they  have  done;  and  many,  with- 
out reflecting,  are  misled. 

It  is  said  that  the  first-named  portion  of  the 
work  was  performed  by  one  of  the  eminent  Pedo- 
baptist  scholars  employed  in  the  great  work. 

This  being  the  fact  in  the  case,  this  worthy 
gentleman  may  have  had  some  conscientious  scru- 
ples about  translating  any  portion  of  the  New 
Testament  involving  the  main  issue.  And,  to 
suit  the  arrangement  to  the  case  of  this  worthy 
personage,  this  part  of  the  work  loas  laid  ojj  for 
him.  But  it  admirably  suits  the  purposes  of  the 
advocates  of  the  movement  in  the  way  I  have  de- 
scribed. Much  capital  is  sought  to  be  made  with 
it.     The  dear  ^^  common  people,^'  for  whose  bene- 


112    IMMERSIONISTS   AGAINST    THE   BIBliE. 

fit  the  wliole  movement  was  professedly  set  on 
foot,  are  sought  to  be  liumhugged ;  so  that  when 
the  whole  of  the  New  Testament  comes  out  with 
immerse  exalted  into  the  place  of  haptize,  they 
may  receive  it  as  the  revelation  of  God.  But 
when  the  history  of  the  movement  is  understood, 
it  requires  but  little  acumen  to  see  quite  through 
this  trick. 

In  this  specimen  of  the  new  version  they  could 
not  come  out  on  the  main  issue,  simply  because 
the  word  involvin<r  it  is  not  in  the  oriorinal.  But 
when  the  whole  of  the  New  Testament  shall  ap- 
pear in  the  neic  garh,  look  out !  Imm,er8e  and 
its  cognates  will  be  in  the  place  of  haptizc  and  its 
cognates.  Imm.€rse  will  then  "  be  printed — 
PRINTED  IN  THE  BiBLE,''  as  Dr.  Conesays  it  ought 
to  be.  This  will  be  the  case,  we  say,  unless  the 
leaders  in  "the  greatest  enterprise  of  the  age" 
should  get  frightened  out  of  their  long-chemshed 
purpose,  to  have  their  strange  dogma  of  '^  dipj 
and  nothing  hut  dip,^'  in  the  New  Testament. 
This  may  be  the  case.  For  not  only  are  the  Pedos 
coming   "  down    upon    them   with    tremendous 


IMMERSIONISTS    AGAINST    THE    BIBLE.      113 

power,"  but  the  large  majority  of  their  own  de- 
nominatiou,  aud  the  large  majority  of  their  greatest 
and  most  learned  men,  are  down  on  the  movement 
like  an  avalanche,  as  far  as  the  English  Scriptures 
are  concerned.  It  is  only  a  fragment  of  the  Bap- 
tist denomination,  and  the  great  body  of  the 
Campbellites,  that  are  united  in  the  movement. 

They  have  precedent  for  backing  out.  The 
majority  of  the  x\merican  and  Foreign  Bible  So- 
ciety, though  they  had  formed  the  purpose  of 
having  an  immersionist  version  of  the  English 
Scriptures,  yet,  as  we  have  shown,  when  the  ques- 
tion came  to  be  tested  in  185-0,  they  backed  out 
from  it-  On  this  account,  and  no  other,  as  we 
have  shown,  the  minority  seceded,  and  formed 
the  American  Bible  Union ;  and  now,  possibl}-, 
the  Union  may  give  up  the  original  and  main 
purpose  after  all.    We  shall  see. 

It  may  be  proper  to  give  additional  proof  that 
the  portion  of  the  new  version  which  has  appeared, 
furnishes  no  guaranty  that  when  the  whole  of  it 
appears  it  will  not  be  sectarian.  There  have  al- 
ready appeared  two  versions  of  the  New  Testa- 
10* 


114     IMMERSIONISTS    AGAINST   THE   BIBLE. 

ment  under  the  auspices  of  'the  friends  of  this 
movement  since  the  Baptists  seceded  from  the 
American  Bible  Society,  whose  character  yery 
clearly  indicates  what  the  forthcoming  version  is 
to  he.  Large  editions  of  these  versions  have 
been  printed ;  and  they  have  been  disseminated 
broadcast  in  the  whole  country,  and  are  in  the 
hands  of  ^'  the  common  people,''  for  whom  they 
were  designed. 

In  1838,  a  version  of  the  New  Testament  was 
published  by  the  American  and  Foreign  Bible 
Society,  bearing  on  the  title-page  the  follovfing 
imprint :  ''  New  York :  Stereotyped  hy  White 
and  Hag ar,  for  the  Am^erican  and  Fo7'eign  Bible 
Society.     John  Gray,  Printer,  1838.'^ 

This  edition  contains  no  immersion  in  the  text, 
but  there  accompanies  it  on  a  fly-leaf  a  glossary, 
or  dictionary,  giving  the  meaning  of  seven  words 
which  the  Society  were  not  willing  to  risk  in  the 
hands  of  "  the  mass  of  the  unlearned/*  without 
explanation. 

Here  follows  this  learned  '''"fly-leaf  glos- 
sary : 


IMMERSIONISTS   AGAINST    THE   BIBLE.      115 


MEANING  OF  CERTAIN  "WOBDS    USED    IN    THIS  VERSION, 


Greek. 

This  version. 

Proper  meaning. 

Angelas, 

Angel, 

Messenger. 

Baptisma, 

Baptism, 

Immersion. 

Baptizo, 

Baptize, 

Immerse. 

Episcopos, 

Bishop, 

Overseer^ 

Agape, 

Charity, 

Love. 

Ecclesia, 

Church, 

Congregation. 

Fascha, 

Easter, 

Passover." 

Now,  of  the  explanations  given  to  these  seven 
words,  except  in  the  case  of  Charity  and  Easter j 
they  are  perfect  nonsense — at  least  in  many  in- 
stances. To  prove  it,  let  the  reader  substitute 
these  meanings  in  the  following  passages  :  Heb. 
ii.  5,  7,  9,  16 ;  xiii.  2  :  1  Cor.  vi.  3  :  John  v.  4  : 
Luke  XX.  36:  Acts  xxiii.  8  :  1  Tim.  iii.  1-3,  etc. 

But  why  are  these  words  arrayed  here  with 
baptism  and  baptize  ?  Why,  simply  and  mainly 
to  have  an  excuse  for  giving  "  the  proper  mean- 
ing" of  baptism  and  baptize.  They  must  pass 
these  terms  through  the  ordeal,  in  order  that, 
with  the  greater  show  of  propriety,  they  might 
put  baptism  and  baptize  on  the  rach^  and  torture 


Il6      IMMERSIONISTS    AGAINST    THE    BIBLE. 

out    of    tliein    "  tJie  proj>er  meaning^^   that    iS; 
'■'■  dip,  and  nothing  hut  di^)." 

The  other  version^  published  ah-eady  by  the 
friends  of  the  revision  movement;  is  that  pre- 
pared by  Messrs.  Cone  and  Wyckoff,  and  proposed 
to  the  American  and  Foreign  Bible  Society  "  for 
its  adoption  and  circulation/'  since  the  publica- 
tion of  the  one  above  named.  This  version  has 
been  scattered  through  the  land  in  thousands  of 
copies.  The  glossary  expedient  is  abandoned  in 
this  version,  and  immerse  and  immersion  are 
^'printed — printed  in  the  Bible/'  as  Dr.  Cone 
(who  was  chiefly  concerned  in  preparing  it)  con- 
tends it  ought  to  be.  Here  is  a  step  further  in 
^^the  greatest  enterprise  of  the  age."  Baptize 
and  haptism  are  turned  out  of  the  Bible,  and  the 
darling  idea  of  "  dip,  and  nothing  hut  dip,'" 
which  is  to  open  the  eyes  of  the  world  and  make 
them  immersionists,  is  put  in  its  stead.  But 
what  becomes  of  the  words  that  accompanied  hap- 
tism and  hapti?:e  in  the  '"''  fiy-lcaf^  edition  ?  Why, 
^'  ihe proper  meaning'^  of  only  three  of  them  (^viz.j 
Charit}^,  Bishop,  and  Easter)  is  given,  and  An- 


IMMERSIONISTS    AGAINST    THE   BIBLE.      117 

gel  and  Church  are  left  as  in  our  version.  Hear 
Dr.  A.  Newton  on  this  subject,  in  the  True  Bap- 
tist :  ''  How  is  this  ?  The  same  men,  the  Pre- 
sident and  Secretary  of  the  same  Society,  first 
give  us  a  New  Testament  with  "  a  glossary'  in 
which  the  reader  is  warned  against  the  improper 
and  false  renderings  of  certain  words  in  the  text, 
and  '  the  proper  meaning'  is  given  to  secure  him 
from  being  led  astray  by  these  false  renderings ; 
and  yet,  when  they  come  to  make  a  version  just 
as  they  would  have  it  themselves,  they  do  not 
give  us  '■  the  proper  meaning,'  but  still  retain  that 
which  they  had  thus  solemnly  pronounced  impro- 
per and  false.  How  is  this?  Was  it  an  over- 
sight ? 

^'  But  as  to  haptize  and  baptism,  they  are  by 
no  means  so  forgetful.  They  make  sure  of  these. 
These  are  uniformly  given  in  their  ^proper  mean- 
ing.' Amidst  '  several  hundred  emendations' 
which  they  say  they  have  made  in  this  edition, 
the  angels  and  the  churches  are  left  to  stand  un- 
disturbed in  their  old  places  in  the  Bible.  Bap- 
tism  and  baptize,  however,  are  rigidly  excluded, 


118      IMMERSIONISTS    AGAINST    THE    BIBLE. 

and  nowhere  in  this  version  are  permitted  to  have 
place.  In  their  stead,  we  have  immersion,  im- 
merse— modal  terms,  unsuited  to  express  the  in 
tent  of  the  original,  and  directly  in  conflict  with 
the  act  enjoined  in  Grod's  word.'' 

I  quote  the  following  from  the  manifesto  ac- 
companying the  issue  of  this  version :  ^'  In  ad- 
dition to  such  specific  cases  of  the  direct  perver- 
sion of  the  word  of  God  in  support  of  the  dogmas 
and  usages  of  the  Church  of  England,  it  may 
be  remarked  that  obscurity  and  indefiniteness  are 
thrown  over  the  ordinance  of  baptism,  in  order 
to  shield  from  the  condemnation  of  holy  writ, 
the  sprinkling  and  pouring  substituted  for  im- 
mersion in  the  practices  of  that  Church,  The 
term  haptizo  and  its  cognates,  which,  if  correctly 
translated,  would  enjoin  immersion,  are  not,  when 
referring  to  the  ordinance,  translated,  but  trans- 
ferred from  the  original  Greek  with  Anglicised 
terminations." — (''  Bible  Translated,"  in  New 
York  Chronicle,  p.  49.)  I  will  give  a 
few  specimens  from  this  version,  that  the 
reader   may  see   what   improvement   they   have 


IMMERSIONISTS    AGAINST    THE   BIBLE.     119 

made  in  favor  of  their  peculiar  dogma.  Here 
they  are  : 

Matt.  iii.  11  :  ^^1  indeed  immerse  you  in  water 
unto  repentance ;  but  he  that  oometh  after  me  is 
mightier  than  I,  whose  shoes  I  am  not  worthy  to 
bear  :  he  will  immerse  you  in  the  Holy  Spirit  and 
fire.'' 

John  i.  25-28  :  ^'xVnd  they  asked  him,  Why 
immersest  thou  then/'  etc.  '^  John  answered 
them,  saying,  I  immerse  in  water/'  etc.  ''  These 
things  were  done  in  Bethabara,  beyond  Jordan, 
where  John  was  immersing.  And  I  knew  him 
not;  but  he  that  sent  me  to  immerse  in  water," 
etc.,  ^Uhe  same  is  he  that  immerseth  in  the  Holy 
Spirit." 

Mark  vii.  4:  ^-And  when  they  come  from 
market,  except  they  immerse,  they  eat  not.  And 
many  other  things  there  are  which  they  have 
received  to  hold,  as  the  immersing  of  cups,  and 
pots,  and  brazen  vessels,  and  couches." 

Luke  xi.  38  :  "  When  the  Pharisee  saw  it,  he 
marvelled  that  he  had  not  first  immersed  before 
dinner." 


120     IMMERSIONISTS    AGAINST    THE    BIBLE. 

Mark  x.  38,  39  :  "  Can  ye  drink  of  tlie  cup 
tliat  I  drink  of?  and  be  immersed  with  the  im- 
mersion that  I  am  immersed  with  ?  Ye  shall 
indeed  drink  of  the  cup  that  I  drink  of;  and 
with  the  immersion  that  I  am  immersed  with  ye 
shall  be  immersed.'^ 

Rom.  vi.  3,  4  :  "  Know  ye  not  that  so  many 
of  us  as  were  immersed  into  Jesus  Christ,  were 
immersed  into  his  death  ?  Therefore  we  are 
buried  with  him  by  immersion  unto  death/^  etc. 

Acts  i.  5  :  "  For  John  indeed  immersed  in 
water;  but  ye  shall  be  immersed  in  the  Holy 
Spirit  not  many  days  hence. ^' 

Acts  xi.  15,  16 :  "And  as  I  began  to  speak, 
the  Holy  Spirit  fell  on  them  as  on  us  at  the 
beginning.  Then  remembered  I  the  word  of  the 
Lord,  how  he  said,  John  immersed  in  water,  but 
ye  shall  be  immersed  in  the  Holy  Spirit." 

Now  let  the  reader  bear  in  mind  that  these 
two  versions  were  published  and  have  been 
circulated  by  the  advocates  of  the  revision  move- 
ment. It  is  true  they  were  published  by  the 
American  and  Foreign  Bible  Society;  but  it  was 


IMMERSIONISTS    AGAINST    THE    BIBLE.     121 

previously  to  their  abandoning  the  idea  of  a  new 
version  in  English.  And  note,  that  they  were 
gotten  up  principally  through  the  influence  of 
Messrs.  Cone  and  WyckoiF,  who  went  off  at  the 
head  of  the  secession  in  1850.  And  the  latter 
edition  of  the  above  two  has  been  and  is  being 
diligently  circulated  by  the  agents  of  the  Union. 
They  have,  therefore,  fully  endorsed  it. 

And  from  these  versions,  does  it  not  appear 
very  clearly  what  they  are  after  ?  These  versions 
were  put  forth  and  sent  abroad  as  liarhingers  or 
forerunners  of  the  denominational  version.  They 
are  intended  to  be  the  means,  in  part,  of  prepar- 
ing the  way  for  it. 

I  have  quoted  from  the  friends  of  the  move- 
ment, showing  what  they  thought  sJiouId  he  the 
version  which  is  sought.  In  these  versions  there 
appears  what  they  have  actually  done,  as  demon- 
strating what  kind  of  a  version  they  are  de- 
termined to  make  it. 

In  the  former  of  these  preparatori/  versions 

they  put  immerse,  etc.,  in  the  glossary/  on  the 

^''  fly-leaf  J^     In  the  latter  they  exclude  haptize, 
'  11 


122     IMMERSIONISTS    AGAINST    THE    EIBLE. 

etc.,  from   the  text^  and   put  immerse^  etc ,  in 
their  place. 

They  are,  therefore,  committed  to  this  feature 
in  the  new  version,  beyond  all  possibility  of 
getting  out  of  it,  unless,  indeed,  they  give  up 
the  whole  enterprise  as  a  magnificent  failure. 


IMMERSIONISTS    AGAINST    THE    BIBLE.     123 


CHAPTEK    YII. 

DISPARAGEMENT    OF    THE    COMMON   VERSION. 

In  this  chapter  I  will  notice  some  of  the 
charges  brought  against  King  James  and  the 
translators  of  the  common  version,  and  especially 
against  the  version  itself. 

These  charges  are  made  for  the  purpose,  of 
course,  of  destroying  confidence  in  the  common 
version,  so  as  to  make  way  for  their  own  one- 
sided, sectarian  translation. 

I  will  only  present  a  few  of  the  many  charges 
they  have  made,  as  an  indication  of  the  animus 
of  the  movement. 

The  English  Bible  is  spoken  of  as  ^'Scriptures 
in  the  dress  and  mask  an  arbitrary  monarch  of 
Popish  extraction,  of  Presbyterian  education,  but 
defebder  of  the  faith  of  Episcopacy,  chose  to  give 
them." 


12-i    IMMERSIONISTS    AGAINST    THE    BIBLE. 

'^  "Was  made  to  suit  other  denominations/^ 

That  "it  perpetuates  ignorance  by  concealment, 
and  error  by  misinterpretation,  on  the  point  at 
which  we  are  at  issue/'  (t.  e.,  of  course,  baptism.) 

Again  :  ''  The  fact  is,  instead  of  performing 
the  work  to  the  best  of  their  knowledge  and 
skill,  they  (the  translators)  were  obliged  to  sub- 
mit themselves,  as  passive  instruments,  to  the  dic- 
tation of  a  monarch  noted  for  passion,  pedantry, 
and  self-will." 

Again  :  "  The  evils  which  have  accrued  from 
the  introduction  of  a  single  word  imposed  by 
foreign  influence,  and  the  bigotry  of  an  earthly 
prince,  no  human  mind  can  compute," 

Again  :  "  One  of  the  important  ordinances  of 
the  gospel,  described  by  the  Holy  Spirit  as  with 
a  sunbeam,  has  been  covered  up  and  hid  from 
the  great  mass  of  the  people  by  the  popiah  artifice 
of  transfer.^' 

"  Under  the  class  of  old  ecclesiastical  words, 
baptize  was  included,  and,  therefore,  the  trans- 
lators did  not  feel  themselves  at  liberty  to  trandate 
it,  but  merely  gave  it  an  Engliah  termination.^^ 


IMMERSIONISTS    AGAINST    THE    BIBLE.     jl20 

'^But  the  King,  it  should  seem,  did  not  wish 
the  meaning  of  the  word  to  be  known  :  our  trans- 
lators acquiesce,  and  so  thej  wrap  it  up.'^ 

^'  Baptists  surely  will  not  cleave  to  the  fasci- 
nating Latin  Vulgate  Baptir.are,  '  chipped,'  as 
Stovel  says,  '  to  suit  the  Saxon  taste,  as  given  by 
the  word  baptize,  crawling  like  a  lizard  from  a 
paj)al  SIC  amp.'  " 

In  a  discussion  of  Revision,  as  reported  in  the 
New  York  Chronicle,  the  Rev.  Mr.  Grafton  said  -• 
''  I  have  heard  that  a  remark  was  made  here  last 
night,  which,  had  I  been  here,  'I  should  have 
feared  God  would  have  sent  a  flash  of  lightning 
to  avenge.  I  heard  that  his  holy  word  was  com- 
pared to  a  hlind,  dumb  dog.'' 

Mr.  S.  AY.  Cone:  "I  protest  that  it  was  not 
the  case." 

Rev.  Dr.  Bowling :  "  I  understood  that  you 
meant  that  we  ministers  had  been  all  our  lives 
palming  a  lame  dog  for  a  sheep." 

Mr.  S.  W.  Cone  :    ^'  I  said   that  every  Baptist 
minister  had  been  attempting,  through  the  whole 
course   of  his    ministry,  to   prove   that    baptize 
11^ 


126     IM3IERSI0NISTS    AGAINST    THE    BIBLE. 

means  to  immerse;  and  I  said  that  the  word 
haptize  was  a  lame  dog^ 

Eev.  Mr.  Kingsford :  ^^  I  feel  constrained  to 
say  that  I  did  not  understand  the  gentleman  so." 

It  will  be  observed  that  Mr.  Cone  does  not 
make  the  case  any  better  after  all. 

Let  the  reader  particularly  notice  the  epithets 
applied  to  the  English  Bible,  to  King  James,  and 
the  translators.  And  these  extracts,  perhaps, 
do  not  contain  a  fair  specimen  of  the  abuse  they 
have  used.  They  foil,  perhaps,  much  below  the 
spirit  that  has  been  manifested  in  this  regard  in 
some  of  the  publications  of  the  friends  of  the 
movement,  and  in  addresses  before  the  people. 
In  a  neio'hborino'  villa2:e,  not  Ions:  ao;o,  the  ablest 
advocate  of  revision,  perhaps,  in  the  West,  in  an 
address  upon  the  subject,  pointed  to  the  common 
version  with  supreme  contempt,  and  denounced  it 
as  containing  falseliood. 

Another  advocate  of  the  movement,  in  an  ad- 
joining county  to  this,  most  solemnly  declared 
that  if  he  were  on  his  dying-bed,  he  could  not 
call  his  child  to  his  bedside  and  put  the  common 


IMMERSIOXISTS    AGAINST    THE    BIBLE.     iZ  i 

version  ia  his  hand  and  tell  him  that  it  would 
safely  guide  him  to  heaven.  What  effect  must 
such  attacks  upon  the  word  of  God  have,  made 
by  men  professing  godliness  I* 

*  In  the  appeal  of  Messrs.  Cone  and  Wyckoff,  pub- 
lished in  the  New  York  Chronicle  for  1850,  pp.  55-75, 
the  following  language  is  used:  "We  hesitate  not  to 
say,  that  if  any  other  book  of  the  size,  disfigured  by 
half  the  number  of  faults  of  a  similar  description, 
were  proposed  as  a  reading-book  in  any  district  school 
in  this  State,  (New  York,)  to  form  the  taste  of  youth  in 
the  use  of  correct  English,  it  would  be  rejected  by  the 
school  committee  with  disdain." 

Says  Dr.  Williams,  in  his  letter  to  the  Amity  Street 
Church,  as  contained  in  a  pamphlet  entitled,  "The 
Common  English  Version," — "Against  the  received  ver- 
sion in  its  present  state  have  been  alleged,  in  language 
of  great  directness  and  ruggedness,  faults  in  grammar 
and  style  that  would  banish  any  other  book  from  our 
common  schools;  and  errors  in  translation,  'obvious 
errors,'  that  endanger  'every  schoolboy,'  'as  he  becomes 
familiar  with  the  Greek  Testament;'  so  that  -no  care  on 
the  part  of  a  teacher  can  prevent  a  germ  of  infidelitii  from 
taking  root  in  his  breast,  when  he  sees  that  Christians, 
while  professing  the  most  ardent  love  for  the  truth, 
prefer  to  circulate  the  most  palpable  falsehoods  under  the 
name  of  God's  revealed  word,  rather  than  correct  them 
when  in  their  nower.' 


128     IMMEUSIONISTS    AGAINST    THE    BIBLE. 

One  tiling,  however,  is  very  clear  from  the 
above  quotations  ',  and  that  is,  that  if  immerse 
had  been  put  in  the  place  of  hajJtt'ze,  King  James 
and  the  translators  would  not  have  been  regarded 
as  so  great  sinners.  That  they  did  not  do  this, 
is  the  burden  of  the  complaint.  If  "dtp,  and 
nothing  hut  dip,''  had  been  where  they  think  it 
ought  to  be,  they  would  be  content.  Thus,  Mr. 
Cushman,  as  already  quoted  :  ''  It  (the  English 
Bible)  is  not  sufficiently  defective,  except  in  re- 
gard to  baptl&m  and   Church  order,  to   be   dis- 

"The  authors  of  the  version  are  impeached  as  having 
used  needlessly  and  unAvarrantably  '■a  most  irreverent 
oath;'  and  as  having  'put  it  into  the  apostle's  mouth;' 
of  having,  with  express  design,  clouded  the  sense  of 
Scripture,  '  iii  order  the  more  effectually  to  obscure  the  per- 
ceptions of  an  ordinary  reader  in  regard  to  the  true  nature 
of  the  ordinance,'  (baptism,)  and  to  force  upon  the  mind 
'a  certain  erroneous  conviction,  almost  uniforml}-  mis- 
translated a  certain  preposition;'  and,  finally,  with 
having  used,  and  that  often,  to  describe  the  third  person 
in  the  adorable  Trinity,  'a  term  of  absurdity  and  im- 
propriety,' and  even  '■mamfcst  blasphemy.'' ^^ 

In  reading  such  abuse  as  the  above,  one  almost  ima- 
gines himself  reading  some  of  the  lowest  and  most  pro- 
fane of  Yoltaire  and  Paine' s  attacks  on  the  Bible. 


IMMERSIONISTS    AGAINST    THE   BIBLE.     129 

trusted  as  a  guide  to  truth  and  duty."  The 
impression  is  sought  to  be  made,  as  in  the  above 
extracts,  that  King  James  originated  the  idea  of 
the  common  version ;  that  it  was  secured  by  his 
influence  as  the  sovereign  of  Great  Britain ;  and 
that  its  adoption  by  the  people  of  his  realm  was 
the  result  of  the  enforcement  of  the  royal  autho- 
rity. No  account  of  the  whole  matter  could  be 
farther  from  the  truth,  as  I  will  show  from  the 
most  unquestionable  authority. 

I  have  before  me  "Annals  of  the  English 
Bible,  by  Christopher  Anderson,  of  Edinburgh, 
abridged  and  continued  by  S.  I.  Prime."  Mr. 
Anderson,  I  learn,  is  a  member  of  the  Baptist 
Church  in  Scotland,  a  gentleman  evidently  of 
learning,  and  who  gives  evidence  in  this  work  of 
very  laborious  and  diligent  research.  His  work 
is  a  standard,  so  far  as  the  history  of  the  English 
Scriptures  is  concerned,  and  his  testimony  ought 
not  to  be  objected  to  by  the  advocates  of  the  new 
version  movement,  as  he  is  a  Baptist  of  very  high 
standing. 

The  main  object  of  Mr.  Anderson  in  this  work 


130     IMMERSIONISTS    AGAINST    THE    BIBLE. 

is  to  show  that,  from  Wycliffe's  translation  of  the 
Holy  Scriptures  from  the  Latin  Vulgate,  and 
Tyndale's  version  from  the  Hebrew  and  Greek, 
into  our  language,  to  the  present  time,  the  work 
has  been  carried  forward,  not  only  icitlwut  the  aid 
or  countenance  of  ecclesiastical  or  civil  authority 
or  power,  but  in  despite  of  both.  And  no  one 
can  fail  to  see,  who  reads  the  work,  that  he  has 
fully  made  out  what  he  proposes. 

And  what  does  Mr.  Anderson  say  in  regard  to 
the  part  which  King  James  had  in  the  common 
version  ?  I  quote  from  Book  III.,  section  iv., 
pp.  400-403. 

^'Up  to  the  present  moment,  (A.  D.  1604,)  the 
history  of  the  English  Bible  had  maintained  a 
character  peculiar  to  itself.  Originating  with  no 
mere  patron,  whether  royal  or  noble,  the  under- 
taking had  never  yet  been  promoted  at  the  per- 
sonal expense  of  any  such  party.  But  now,  in 
regard  to  that  version  of  the  sacred  volume, 
which  for  two  hundred  and  thirty  years  has  been 
read  with  delight,  from  generation  to  generation, 
and  proved  the  effectual  means  of  knowledge, 


IMMERSIONISTS    AGAINST    THE   BIBLE.     131 

holiness,  and  joj  to  millions,  it  may  be  imagined 
by  some,  as  there  was  another  and  a  final  change, 
that  our  history  must  at  last  change,  or,  in  other 
words,  forfeit  its  character.  If,  however,  the 
accounts  frequently  given  of  our  present  version 
have  been  involved  in  as  much  inaccuracy  of 
statement  as  they  have  been  with  regard  to  all 
the  preceding  changes,  there  is  the  greater  ne- 
cessity for  the  public  mind  being  disabused ;  and 
that,  too,  whether  in  Britain  or  America,  or  the 
British  foreign  dependencies.  This  is  a  subject 
which  alike  concerns  them  all,  as  they  all  read 
and  prize  the  same  version. 

^'  If  because  that  a  dedication  to  James  the 
First  of  England  has  been  prefixed  to  many 
copies,  though  not  to  many  others;  and  if  be- 
cause not  only  historians,  at  their  desks,  but 
lawyers  at  the  bar,  and  even  judges  on  the  bench, 
have  made  most  singular  mistakes,  it  has  there- 
fore been  imagined  by  any,  or  many,  that  the 
present  version  of  our  Bible  was  either  suggested 
by  this  monarch,  or  that  he  was  at  any  personal 


132     IMMERSIONISTS   AGAINST    THE   BIBLE. 

expense  in  the  undertaking;  or  that  he  ever 
issued  a  single  line  of  authority,  by  way  of  pro- 
clamation, with  respect  to  it;  it  is  more  than 
time  that  the  delusion  should  come  to  an  end. 
The  original  and  authentic  documents  of  the  time 
are  so  far  explicit,  that  just  in  proportion  as  they 
are  sifted,  and  the  actual  circumstances  placed  in 
view,  precisely  the  same  independence  of  royal 
bounty,  and,  on  the  part  of  the  people  at  large, 
the  same  superiority  to  all  royal  dictation,  which 
we  have  beheld  all  along,  will  become  apparent. 
James  himself,  however  vain,  is  certainly  not  so 
much  to  be  blamed  for  any  different  impression, 
as  some  others  who  have  misrepresented  his 
Majesty.  On  the  other  hand,  his  character  was 
such,  that  to  many  writers  it  has  occasioned  some 
exercise  of  patience  even  to  refer  to  it.  But 
since  his  name  occurs  in  connection  with  this  final 
revision  of  the  English  Bible,  it  is  of  the  more 
importance  to  ascertain  the  exact  amount  of  this 
connection.  From  the  moment  in  which  he  was 
invited  to  the  throne,  and  to  be  king  of  Great 


IMMERSIONISTS   AGAINST    THE    BIBLE.     133 

Britain,  his  own  favorite  term,  down  to  the  year 
in  which  our  present  version  was  published,  his 
'roj-al  progress'  is  forced  upon  our  notice. 

^'Elizabeth  had  expired  on  the  24th  of  March, 
1603,  when  the  King  of  Scothxnd  succeeded  as 
James  the  First,  finally  assuming  the  style  of 
King  of  Great  Britain,  France,  and  Ireland. 
Having  left  Edinburgh  for  England,  on  Tuesday 
ihe  5th  of  April,  James  proceeded,  by  the  way 
of  Berwick  and  Newcastle,  through  York  to  Lou- 
don, where  he  did  not  arrive  till  the  7th  of  May. 
Throughout  this  journey  he  had  already  furnished 
a  strong  contrast,  in  point  of  character,  to  his 
predecessor.  With  regard  to  rewards,  whether 
in  point  of  honor  or  emolument,  Elizabeth  had 
been  so  sparing  that  she  had  been  charged  with 
avarice.  But  James  having  once  procured  from 
London  such  supplies  as  might  enable  him  to  ad- 
vance in  befitting  style,  actually  hunted  most  of 
the  way,  scattering  the  honors  of  knighthood  with 
such  profusion  along  the  road,  that  by  the  day 
he  entered  his  capital  the  number  of  his  knights 
was  about  one  hundred  and  fifty ;  and  before 
12 


134    IMMERSIONISTS    AGAINST    THE    BIBLE. 

one  fortnight  had  passed,  or  by  the  20th  of  May, 
'they  were  accounted  at  two  hundred  and  thirty- 
seven,  or  better,  since  the  time  he  entered  Ber- 
wick/ on  the  6th  of  April.  The  queen,  with  her 
children,  having  followed  in  June,  the  coronation 
took  place  in  July;  after  which,  his  Majesty 
immediately  returned,  with  great  ardor,  to  his 
favorite  sport  of  hunting.  Though  now  entered 
into  his  thirty-ninth  year,  and  having  affairs  to 
manage  which  had  demanded  all  the  talents  of 
an  Elizabeth,  never  was  a  boy  let  loose  from 
school  more  bent  upon  his  amusement. 

"  Of  the  learnino-  or  talent  to  be  found  in  En2:- 
land,  where  he  had  done  little  else  than  follow 
the  hounds  and  the  hares,  James  as  yet  could 
know  next  to  nothing.  Of  Oxford  and  Cam- 
bridge he  was  equally  ignorant.  He  had  not 
called  any  circle  of  learned  men  around  him,  nor, 
indeed,  ever  did.  Such  also  was  the  state  of  his 
finances,  when  necessity  forced  him  to  call  a  par- 
liament. ^It  was,'  sa3's  Sir  James  Mcintosh, 
'  his  last  resource.  He  had  exhausted  his  credit 
with  the  money-dealers,  both  in  London  and  Hoi- 


IMMERSIONISTS   AGAINST    THE    BIBLE.     135 

land,  to  supply  liis  prodigalities,  before  lie  issued 
his  proclamatiou  for  the  meeting  of  parliament, 
on  the  19th  of  March/ 

''It  was  in  the  midst  of  his  sport  at  Wilton, 
and  his  preparations  for  the  arraignment  of  Sir 
Walter  Raleigh,  that  James  issued  a  proclama- 
tion, dated  the  24th  day  of  October,  'Touchiug  a 
meeting  for  the  hearing  and  for  the  determining 
things  pretended  to  be  amiss  in  the  Church.' 
This  meeting,  known  ever  since  as  'the  Conference 
at  Hampton  Court,'  was  held  in  the  drawing- 
room  there,  on  Saturday,  Monday,  and  Wednes- 
day, the  14th,  16th,  and  18th  of  January,  1604. 

''  The  Conference,  it  will  be  understood,  was  not 
with  any  official  hochj  of  men  whatever;  and  it 
should  also  be  remembered,  that  however  exalted 
were  the  ideas  of  James  himself,  as  to  his  pre- 
rogatives, or  of  his  right  and  title  to  the  throne, 
strictly  speaking,  or  according  to  law,  he  was  not 
yet  king  of  England;  nor  could  he  be  till  the 
assembling  of  Parliament.  That  was  the  point 
to  which,  as  we  have  seen,  Lord  Cecil  was  look- 
ing forward.     This  was  a  conference,  therefore, 


136     IMMERSIONISTS   AGAINST    THE   BIBLE. 

of  the  king  by  courtesy,  for  the  time  being,  with 
only  nine  bishops,  eight  deans,  an  archdciicon, 
two  professors  of  divinity  from  Oxford,  two  from 
Cambridge,  to  which  one  native  of  Scotland,  Mr. 
I*atrick  Gralloway,  formerly  of  Perth,  was  also 
admitted.  Nor  were  oven  all  these  parties  present 
on  any  one  day. 

"The  16th  of  January  was  the  time  appointed 
for  hearing  of  things  '■  pretended  to  be  amiss/ 
as  the  proclamation  had  phrased  it ;  and  it  was 
among  them  that  the  necessity  for  another  revi- 
sion or  translation  of  the  Bible  was  first  men- 
tioned. 

''Dr.  John  Rainolds,  a  man  of  high  and  un- 
blemished character,  then  in  his  55th  year,  was 
at  that  time  nearly,  if  not  altogether,  the  most 
eminent  individual  for  learning  and  erudition  in 
the  kingdom.  He  was  now  the  President  of  Cor- 
pus Christi  College,  and  the  chief  speaker  on  this 
occasion 

"As  presented  by  Rainolds  was  the  following: 
'  That  a  translation  bo  made  of  the  whole  Bible, 
as.  consonant  as  can  he  to  the  orir/inal  Ilehreio 


and  Greek,  and  this  to  be  set  out  and  printed, 
without  any  r}iarginal  notes,  and  only  to  be  used 
in  all  churches  of  England  in  time  of  Divine 
service/  Now  by  this  version  of  the  story  the 
exclusion  of  all  marginal  notes  originated  with 
Rainolds,  as  well  as  the  proposal  of  a  new  trans- 
lation. 

''  The  first  Parliament  held  by  the  King  assem- 
bled on  the  19th  of  March,  1604,  and  the  Convo- 
cation on  the  following  day.  The  Primate,  Whit- 
gift,  having  expired  on  the  29th  of  February, 
Bancroft,  the  Bishop  of  Loudon,  was  appointed 
to  preside.  James  had  commenced  these  proceed- 
ings with  a  speech  longer  than  many  a  sermon; 
but  at  last,  not  being  in  the  best  humor  with  his 
English  Parliament,  he  dissolved  it  on  the  7th  of 
July,  and  the  Convocation  rose. 

"Among  all  the  business  of  either  house,  not 
one  word  was  spoken  then  respecting  the  Scrip- 
tures ;  nor  do  we  hear  of  any  movement  in  con- 
sequence of  what  had  passed  at  Hampton  Court, 
till  the  end  of  June.  Some  time  had  been  re- 
quired for  the  selection  of  suitable  scholars,  and 
12* 


138     IMMERSIONISTS    AGAINST    THE    BIBLE. 

before  the  end  of  that  month  a  list  was  presented 
to  James  for  his  acceptance.  They  had  been  se- 
lected for  him,  and  he  of  course  approved." 

Now,  in  the  light  of  the  above,  what  becomes 
of  the  allegation  that  the  common  version  was 
secured  at  the  instance  of  James  to  subserve  his 
purposes  as  an  individual  and  a  sovereign  ?  For 
it  appears,  1,  that  at  the  time  of  the  session  of  the 
Hampton  Court  Conference,  James  was  not,  ac- 
cording to  law.  King  of  England  at  all,  nor  was 
he  till  more  than  two  months  afterwards.  Conse- 
quently, the  Conference  itself  was  vested  with  no 
civil  or  ecclesiastical  authority.  It  was  composed 
of  ''  no  official  body  of  men  whatever.''  The  King 
was  present,  and  presided  by  courtesy,  and  not 
officially.  It  appears,  2,  that  the  King  was  not 
the  mover  of  the  proposition  to  have  a  new  ver- 
sion. Dr.  Ptaiuolds  made  the  motion.  lie  only 
consented  or  approved  of  the  measure.  It  appears, 
3,  that  the  King  did  not  even  select  the  trans- 
lators. They  were  selected  by  another,  and  he 
only  accepted  the  selection.  We  learn,  4,  that 
James  did  not  even  contribute  one  cent  toward 


IMMERSIONISTS    AGAINST    THE    BIBLE.     V69 

defraying  the  expenses  of  the  translation,  nor  of 
its  publication,  as  we  learn  from  the  following  ex- 
tract of  a  letter  sent  from  the  King  to  all  the 
bishops,  by  Bancroft,  acting  as  the  Archbishop 
of  Canterbury.  This  is  found  on  page  404  of  the 
"work  above  named  : 

'' Right-trusty  and  well-beloved  brother,  we 
greet  you  well.  Whereas  we  have  appointed  cer- 
tain learned  men  to  the  number  of  four-and-fifty, 
for  the  translating  of  the  Bible,  and  that  in  this 
number  diverse  of  them  either  have  no  ecclesi- 
astical preferment  at  all,  or  else  so  very  small  as 
the  same  is  far  unmeet  for  men  of  their  deserts, 
and  yet,  we  of  OURSELF  in  any  convenient  time 
cannot  well  remedy  it :  Therefore,  we  do  hereby 
require  you,  that  presently  you  write,  in  our  name, 
as  well  to  the  Bishop  of  York,  as  to  the  rest  of 
the  bishops  of  the  province  of  Canterhury,  sig- 
nifying unto  them  that  we  do  will,  and  straitly 
charge  every  one  of  them,  as  also  the  other  bishops 
of  the  province  of  York,  as  they  tender  our  good 
favor  toward  them,  that  (all  excuses  set  apart) 
when  any  prebend  or  parsonage,  being  rated  in 


140      IMMERSIONTSTS    AGAINST    THE   PIBLE. 

our  book  of  taxations^  the  prebend  to  twenty 
pounds  at  least,  and  the  parsonage  to  the  like  sum 
and  upwards,  sliall  next  upon  any  occasion  hap- 
pen to  be  void,  and  to  be  either  of  their  patron- 
age, or  of  the  patronage  and  gift  of  any  j)crs,on 
irliatever,  they  do  make  stay  thereof,  and  admit 
none  unto  it,  until  certifying  us  of  the  avoidance 
of  it,  and  of  the  name  of  the  patron,  if  it  be  not 
of  their  own  gift,  that  we  may  commend  for  the 
same  some  such  of  the  learned  men  as  we  shall 
think  fit  to  be  preferred  unto  it;  not  doubting  of 
the  bishops'  readiness  to  satisfy  us  herein,  or  that 
any  of  the  laity,  when  we  shall  in  time  move  them 
to  so  good  and  religious  an  act,  will  be  unwilling 
to  give  us  the  like  due  contentment  and  satisfac- 
tion; we  ourselves  having  taken  the  same  order 
for  such  prebends  and  benefices  as  shall  be  void 
in  our  gift.' 

Mr.  Anderson  says,  p.  410,  ^'  The  first  revision 
of  the  sacred  text  by  the  forty-seven  occupied 
about  four  years ;  the  second  examination  by 
twelve,  or  two  selected  out  of  each  company,  nine 
months  more,  and  the  sheets  passing  through  the 


IMMERSIOXISTS    AGAINST    THE   BIBLE.      141 

press  other  two  years,  when  the  Bible  of  1611 
was  finished,  and  first  issued." 

"\Ye  have  seen  how  the  first  revision  was  paid 
for.  Let  us  see  how  the  second,  or  that  by  the 
twelve,  was  paid  for.  The  historian  will  tell  us 
on  the  same  page  how  it  was  likely  done  : 
"  Twelve  men  paid  at  the  rate  of  thirty  shillings 
each  was  equal  to  £18  weekly,  and  for  the  thirty- 
nine  weeks  £702  must  have  been  expended,  which 
expense  was  probably  borne  by  Barker,  who  had 
the  patent  for  printing  the  Bible. 

"The  honor  of  payment  for  the  whole  concern, 
so  often  ascribed  to  James  the  First,  is  by  no 
means  to  be  taken  from  him,  if  one  shred  of 
positive  evidence  can  be  produced ;  but  this,  it  is 
presumed,  lies  beyond  the  possibility  of  research. 
In  this  case,  therefore,  to  speak  correctly,  we  have 
come  at  last,  not  to  an  afi'air  of  government,  not 
to  a  roj^al  undertaking  at  his  3Iajest?/'s  expense, 
according  to  the  popular  and  very  erroneous  his- 
torical fiction,  hut  sm}p)li/  to  a  transaction  in  the 
course  of  business.  If  we  inquire  for  any  single 
royal  grant,  or  look  for  any  act  of  personal  gene- 


142     IMMERSIONISTS    AGAINST    THE    BIBLE. 

rosity,  we  searcli  in  vain." — We  learn  by  an 
additional  extract  from  this  work,  (pp.  410,  411,) 
that  it  was  not  by  the  authority  of  King  James, 
or  any  power  civil  or  ecclesiastical,  that  the  com- 
mon version  came  to  be  received  as  the  standard 
version  in  England,  Scotland,  and  Ireland.  "  There 
is  one  other  inquiry  to  be  made,  and  this,  to  some 
minds,  may  be  not  the  least  important.  It  is  this  : 
By  whose  infiuencc  or  aiiiliority  was  it,  that  our 
version  of  the  sacred  volume  came  to  be  read,  not 
in  England  alone,  but  in  Scotland  and  Ireland  ? 
This,  too,  is  a  question  the  more  interesting  to 
millions,  as  it  is  now  the  Bible  of  so  many  distant 
climes — read  not  only  in  America  and  Canada, 
but  in  all  the  widespread  and  daily  extending 
British  colonies.  The  reigning  king  had  indeed 
signified  his  approbation  of  the  undertaking,  and 
when  the  Bible  was  published  it  bore  on  its  title- 
page  that  the  version  had  been  '■  newly  trans- 
lated out  of  the  original  tongues,  and  with  the 
former  translations  diligently  compared  and  re- 
vised, by  his  Majesty's  special  commandment.' 
In  a  separate  line  below,  and  by  itself,  we  have 


IMMERSIONISTS   AGAINST    THE    BIBLE.      143 

these  words  :  ^Appointed  to  be  read  iu  clmrclies.' 
Now,  as  tlie  book  never  was  submitted  to  Parlia- 
ment, never  to  any  Convocation,  nor,  as  far  as  is 
known,  ever  to  the  Privy  Council,  James,  by 
this  title-page,  was  simply  following  or  made  to 
follow  in  the  train  of  certain  previous  editions. 
As  for  Elizabeth,  his  immediate  predecessor,  we 
have  already  seen  that  under  her  long  reign  there 
was  another  revision  besides  the  bishops',  and 
that  the  former  enjoyed  the  decided  preference 
in  public  favor:  so,  in  the  present  instance,  that 
there  might  be  no  mistake  or  misapprehension 
in  regard  to  the  influence  of  author  it  i/  by  which 
our  present  Bible  came  to  be  universally  re- 
ceived, a  result  somewhat  similar  took  place. 

''Thus,  for  seven  or  eight  years  after  the  present 
version  was  published,  we  find  Barker,  or  Norton 
and  Bill,  still  printing  the  Geneva  Bible,  in  ten 
editions,  besides  four  of  the  New  Testament 
separately.  The  fact  is,  that  the  royal  patentee 
went  on  to  print  both  versions  to  the,  year  1617, 
or  1618.  After  that  the  Geneva  Bibles,  so  fre- 
quently printed  in   Holland,  were  imported  and 


144     IMMERSIONISTS    AGAINST    THE    BIBLE. 

sold,  without  the  shadow  of  inhibitioii,  during  the 
entire  reign  of  James  the  First,  and  longer  still. 
As  for  Scotland,  from  whence  the  king  had  come, 
that  Bible  continued  to  be  as  much  used  there  as 
the  present  version,  for  more  than  twenty  years 
after  James  was  in  his  grave.  The  influence  or 
authority  of  James,  therefore,  cannot  once  be 
mentioned  when  accounting  for  the  final  result. 

"The  Bible  was,  indeed,  first  published  in  1611, 
and  was  still  further  corrected  in  1613 ;  but  did 
James,  as  a  king,  take  one  step  to  enforce  its 
perusal  ?  Not  one  :  a  fact  so  much  the  more 
notable  when  the  overweening  conceit  of  that 
monarch,  and  the  high  terms  in  which  he  so 
frequently  expressed  himself  as  to  his  preroga- 
tive, are  remembered. 

"'We  can  assign,'  says  one  of  the  best  living 
authorities  in  the  kingdom,  '  we  can  assign  no 
authority/  for  using  the  present  version  of  the 
Bible,  except  that  of  the  Conference  at  Hampton 
Court.'  But  that  Conference  has  been  already 
described;  and  in  the  circumstances,  it  actually 
amounted  to  no  authority  at  all  in  point  of  a  law. 


IMMERSIONISTS    AGAINST    THE    BIBLE.     145 

James  was  not  then  King  of  England  :  tliough 
had  it  been  otherwise,  that  Conference  certainly 
had  not  the  slightest  influence  in  recommending 
the  version  to  which  it  gave  rise.  However, 
immediately  after  his  Majesty  had  been  recog- 
nized  by  the  Parliament,  he  had  spoken  once,  aa 
we  have  heard ;  and  his  solitary  letter  we  have 
given  at  length.  It  was,  in  {)art,  abortive;  and 
after  that,  it  seems,  he  must  speak  no  more )  a 
circumstance  the  more  worthy  of  notice,  as 
James  was  notoriously  so  fond  of  speaking  offi- 
cially, and  especially  by  proclamations.  In  the 
first  nine  months  of  his  reign  he  had  issued  at 
least  a  round  dozen ;  but  here  there  was  nothing 
of  the  kind.  ^After  this  translation  was  pub- 
lished,^ says  one  writer,  ^  the  others  all  dropped 
off  by  degrees,^  that  is,  in  about  forty  years, 
^and  this  took  the  place  of  all,  though  I  do  not 
find  that  there  was  any  canon,  'proclamation,  or 
act  of  Parliament  to  enforce  the  use  of  it.' '' 

This    shows    the    utter    baselessness    of    the 
assumption,   upon  the  part  of  advocates   of  the 

revision  movement   of  our  day,  as   to   the  part 
13 


146    IMMERSIONISTS    AGAINST    THE   BIBLE. 

wliicli  was  taken  by  King  James  in  the  procure- 
ment and  circulation  of  the  common  version. 
Ignorance  of  the  history  of  facts,  or  blindness 
caused  by  an  overheated  zeal  to  sustain  the 
interests  of  a  party  reckless  of  the  testimony  of 
history,  can  alone  account  for  the  representations 
and  charges  which  have  been  made  in  the  pre- 
mises. I  quote  the  following  from  the  address 
of  Mr.  A.  Campbell  to  the  Bible  Convention  at 
Memphis,  April,  1852,  as  fully  agreeing  with  the 
facts  above  quoted  : 

"  But  it  [the  English  Bible]  originated  not 
with  and  proceeded  not  from  them  [King  James 
and  his  party].  If  was  individual  piety,  learn- 
ing, zeal,  enterprise,  that  gave  to  us  our  present 
English  Bible." 

Bat  admitting  that  King  James  exercised  royal 
authority  in  procuring  the  version  in  common 
use,  (and  we  have  proved  that  he  did  not,)  what 
ground  is  there  for  the  charge  that  he  left  the 
translators  no  discretion  in  the  work  of  translat- 
ing] that,  instead  of  leaving  them  to  do  the 
work  to  the  best  of  their  knowledge  and  skill, 


IMMERSIONISTS  AGAINST   THE   BIBLE.     147 

tliey  "  were  obliged  to  yield  themselves  as  pe^ssive 
instruments  to  tlie  dictates  of  a  monarch  ?"  etc. 

This,  certainly,  is  a  grave  charge;  and  there 
ought  to  have  been  most  satisfactory  proof  of  the 
justness  of  it  before  it  was  made.  But  I  think 
I  will  make  it  appear  to  every  candid  mind  that 
it  is  an  utterly  gratuitous  and  reckless  slander. 

It  is  very  evident,  if  King  James  did  exercise 
the  arbitrary  power  ascribed  to  him,  it  will 
appear  in  the  rules  laid  down  for  the  direction  of 
the  translators.  If  it  does  not  appear  in  these, 
it  is  evident  that  its  source  is  in  the  imaginations 
of  revisionists. 

I  will  quote,  as  relating  to  this  subject,  the 
1st,  3d,  and  14th  rules  : 

1st.  "  The  ordinary  Bible  read  in  the  Church, 
commonly  called  the  Bishops'  Bible,  to  be  fol- 
lowed, and  as  little  altered  as  the  original  will 
permit." 

3d.  ''The  old  ecclesiastical  words  to  be  kept; 
as  the  word  Church,  not  to  be  translated  Con- 
gregation, etc." 

14th.  ''These   translations  to   be   used  when 


148     IMMERSIONISTS    AGAINST    THE   BIBLE. 

tliey  agree  better  with  the  text  than  the  Bishops* 
Bible,  viz. :  1.  Tyndale's;  2.  Matthew's;  3.  Cover- 
dale's;  4.  Whitchurch's;  (i.  e.,  Cranmer's;)  5.  The 
Geneva." 

Now,  what  ^^  dictation"  is  here  to  be  objected 
to  ?  The  Bishops'  Bible  is  to  be  followed,  and  as 
little  altered  '-as  the  original  ivill  jycrmit^ 
(Rule  1st.)  Therefore,  the  original  is  the  ulti- 
mate standard  recognized.  And  the  translators 
are  left  to  their  free  and  unrestrained  judgment 
in  determining  its  meaning.  "Was  not  this  dis- 
cretion enough  ?  AYas  this  fettering  the  transla- 
tors ?  In  addition  (Rule  14th)  they  are  left 
free  to  follow  any  or  all  of  five  other  versions, 
when  they  agree  better  with  the  text  {%.  e.  the 
original)  than  the  Bishops'  Bible.  The  trans- 
lators, then,  are  allowed  to  make  the  original 
Hebrew  and  Grreek  their  standard :  whatever 
respect  they  were  to  pay  to  the  Bishops'  Bible, 
or  any  other  version,  they  were  required,  as  a  sine 
qua  non,  to  conform  to  the  import  of  the  origi- 
nal. This  was  the  ultimate  and  final  standard. 
The   only  dictation  which  appears   is,  that   the 


IMMERSIOMSTS    AGAIXST    TilE    BIBLE.     149 

original  was  made  tlie  standard  of  authority  in 
traaslatiug.     Is  this  objectionable  ? 

The  chief  stress,  however,  is  laid  upon  the 
third  rule.  It  is  charged  that  under  this  rule  he 
meant  to  prohibit  the  translation  of  haptizo,  and 
some  other  words,  in  order  to  make  it  "  suit  other 
denominations,"  especially  the  Episcopalians :  that 
under  the  restraint  of  this  rule  ^^  ignorance  is 
perpetuated  by  concealment,  and  error  by  mis- 
interpretation :"  that  haptize  "  was  imposed  by 
foreign  influence  and  the  bigotry  of  an  earthly 
prince:"  that  ^^one  of  the  ordinances  of  the 
gospel  has  been  covered  up  by  tlie  popish  artifice 
of  transfer  :^'  that  ^^  the  king  did  not  wish  the 
meaning  of  the  word  to  appear;  the  translators 
acquiesce,  and  so  ^  they  wrap  it  up  :'  "  baptize 
being  "included  in  the  class  of  old  ecclesiastical 
words,  the  translators  did  not  feel  themselves  at 
liberty  to  translate  it,  but  gave  it  a7i  English 
terrtiinatloRy 

Now,  how  do  these  slanderers  know  that  the 

translators  did  not  feel  themselves  at  liberty  to 

translate  haptizo,  and  on  this  account  did  not  put 
13* 


150     IMMERSIONISTS    AGAINST    THE    BIBLE. 

immerse^  or  a  word  of  sucli  import,  in  tlie  place 
of  it? 

But  let  us  see  if  there  is  any  ground  for  the 
charge  that  the  third  rule  restrained  and  fettered 
the  translators  in  regard  to  haptizo. 

1.  We  most  solemnly  deny  that  the  third  rule 
prohibits  the  translation  from  the  original  of  hap- 
tizo,  or  any  other  word.  It  only  requires  that 
the  old  ecclesiastical  words  be  retained,  or  ^^hcpt.'" 
The  word  ^'CJnu-ch"  is  the  only  example  gi^'en 
to  illustrate  the  mcaninc'  of  the  rule.     But  there 

o 

IS  no  prohibition  of  the  translation  of  that.  That 
is  itself  a  translation  of  the  original  word,  eccJesia. 
The  original  word  was  not  forbidden  to  be  trans- 
lated. The  only  thing  prohibited  is  that  "  co?*- 
greffatioii"  should  be  translated  from  the  original, 
instead  of '' CJmrch."  That  is  all.  There  is, 
therefore,  no  prohibition  of  translation  from  the 
original  in  this  rule  at  all.  And  it  is  only  by  a 
most  astonishing  perversion  of  its  meaning  that 
such  a  construction  can  be  given  to  it. 

2.  But  we  will  suppose,  for  the  sake  of  argu- 
ment, that  the  rule  does  prohibit  the  translation 


IMMERSIONISTS    AGAINST    THE    BIBLE.     151 

of  "old  ecclesiastical  words"  from  the  original; 
yet  how  is  it  made  out  that  baptize  is  one  of 
these,  and,  therefore,  was  retained  by  virtue  of 
the  authority  of  the  rule  ?  Baptize  is  not  once 
named  in  the  rule;  and  yet  revisionists  speak  as 
confidently  upon  this  subject  as  if  the  word  were 
positively  named  in  the  rule.  It  is  not  there. 
They  ^^ foist  it  in."  They  pervert  the  meaning 
of  the  rule,  and  then  apply  it  to  this  word. 
They  say,  ''The  king  did  not  wish  the  meaning 
of  the  word  to  appear.'^  How  do  they  find  this 
out?  Not  in  the  rules.  They  invent  this 
assumption  to  serve  "the  greatest  enterprise  of 
the  age."  "  The  translators  acquiesce,  and  so 
they  wrap  it  up."  Where  is  the  authority  for 
this  dark  slander'/  Not  in  the  rules.  The  pur- 
pose is  settled  to  turn  haj^tize  out  of  the  Bible ; 
and  the  point  is,  to  secure  something  as  an  apology 
for  it,  and  they  can  imagine  facts  when  they  dc 
not  exist. 

But,  3.  A  proof  that  the  translators  did  not 
understand  the  third  nile  as  prohibiting  the 
translation  of  haptizo  and  its  cognates,  is  found 


152     IxMMERSIONISTS    AGAINST   THE    BIBLE. 

ill  the  fjTct  that  tlicy  did  translate  oaptizo. 
What,  then,  becomes  of  the  construction  given 
to  the  third  rule,  and  of  the  charge,  that  the 
transhitors  were  mere  ^^ passive  instruments^'  in 
a  plan  ^'  to  wrap  up^'  God's  holy  word  ? 

,  In  Mark  vii.  4.  two  of  the  derivatives  of  hap- 
tizo  are  found,  viz.,  (3anrLG0)VTaL,  haptisontai, 
and  (3aTTTLajj,ovg,  haptismous.  In  our  translation 
the  former  is  rendered  ^' loasli,"  and  the  latter 
^^  washing.'' 

In  Heb.  ix.  10,  (SaTTTLOixdlg,  hap)tisniois,  is 
found.     It  is  rendered  by  ^'  washings." 

Now,  if  the  translators  were  the  sycophantic, 
unprincipled  men  they  are  represented  as  having 
been,  and  King  James  exercised  the  despotic 
dictation  over  them  he  is  said  to  have  done,  how 
are  we  to  account  for  the  fact  that  the  translators 
did,  in  three  instances  at  least,  translate  haptizo 
by  a  word  familiar  to  'Uhe  common  people?'' 
This  cannot  be  answered  on  the  ground  assumed, 
that  the  third  rule  was  understood  as  prohibiting 
the  translation  of  hapti?:o^  but  as  requiring  its 
transfer.     In  these  instances  we  find  the  translar- 


IMMERSIONISTS    AGAINST    THE   BIBLE.     153 

tors  flying  in  tlie  face  of  the  king's  authority; 
andj  strange  to  say,  we  hear  of  no  complaint 
upon  his  part,  or  from  any  other  source. 

But,  finally,  I  assume  that  the  translators  of 
the  common  version,  in  rendering  haptizo  by  hap- 
tize,  did  really  translate  a  Greek  word  by  an 
English  word.  At  the  time  our  translation  was 
made,  haptlze  was  as  really  an  English  word  as 
it  is  now.  It  is  true  it  was  taken  from  the 
Greek  language ;  but  it  had  been  a  part  and 
parcel  of  the  English  vocabulary  for  centuries. 
There  was  no  such  thing,  then,  as  tranfer  in  the 
use  of  this  word  at  the  time  our  translation  was 
made.  Can  the  advocates  of  this  movement  be 
ignorant  of  the  fact  that  words  from  foreign  lan- 
guages make  up  a  large  proportion  of  the  English 
vocabulary,  and  that  they  are  just  as  really  entitled 
to  be  regarded  English  words  as  any  other  ?  To 
show  that  my  position  in  regard  to  the  history  of 
baptize  as  an  English  word  is  correct,  I  will  quote 
from  eminent  Baptist  ministers,  of  learning  and 
talents. 

Br.  John  Bowliuo",  in  a  tract  containing  tea 


154     IMMERSIONISTS    AGAINST   THE   BIBLE. 

reasoDS  for  his  opposition  to  the  new  version 
movement^  gives  as  the  fourth:  "Because  the 
word  hcqjtizc  is  itself,  to  all  intents  and  ^ur- 
2^oses,  an  English  icorcl.'' 

The  Rev.  Dr.  Ide  says  :  "  I  suppose  that  ha^p- 
tize  is  the  only  English  word  by  which  you  can 
translate  haptizo.^' 

"  It  is  eight  hundred  years  older,  as  a  native 
English  citizen,  than  immerse.^' 

The  Rev.  Dr.  Williams  says  :  "  On  the  score 
of  age,  the  word  haptize  is  probably  some  six 
centuries  older,  as  an  English  word,  than  the 
term  immerse,  proposed  to  replace  it.  Its  rights 
in  the  English  language  are  older  than  Magna 
Charta — older  than  the  Norman  conquest — coeval 
with  the  very  birth  of  the  language  properly 
so  called.  And  yet.  it  is  proposed  by  some  to 
repudiate  and  reject  it  as  an  alien  in  our  dialect.'' 

"Now,  where  and  what  are  the  mighty  objec- 
tions to  these  rules,  [King  James's  rules  to  the 
translators,]  which  could  be  suggested  to  an  intel- 
ligent and  impartial  reader  ?  Where  are  the 
manacles  and  fetters,  the  arhitrary  dictation,  and 


IMMERSIONISTS    AGAINST    THE    BIBLE.     155 

the  odious  despotism  ?  Where  are  the  maslting, 
mutilation,  concealment,  and  disguise,  and  wrap- 
ping up  in  obscurity?  Where  is  the  evidence 
of  '■  unhiwful  iDterference/  '  infringing  the  liberty 
of  conscience,  and  laying  violent  hands  on  the 
truth  itself?^  Where  is  the  proof  that  the  trans- 
lators were  compelled,  by  royal  mandate,  to  adopt 
the  popish  artifice  of  transfer,  and  that  '  that 
word  which  he  (Christ)  used  in  the  great  com- 
mission to  denote  his  own  initiatory  ordinance, 
was,  b}^  order  of  King  James,  transferred  into  our 
English  Bibles?'  Where  is  the  evidence  that 
the  translators,  '  instead  of  performing  the  work 
to  the  best  of  their  knowledge  and  skill,  were 
obliged  to  submit  themselves  as  passive  instru- 
ments to  the  dictation  of  a  monarch  noted  for 
passion,  pedantry,  and  self-will  V 

"  There  is  no  evidence  of  any  such  thing.  The 
charges  are  false,  whether  made  through  '  ignor- 
ance or  dishonesty.'  I  fearlessly  avow  my  con- 
viction of  the  wisdom,  judiciousness,  and  general 
liberality  of  these  rules." — (True  Baptist,  by  Dr. 
A.  Newton.) 


156     IMMERSIONISTS    AGAINST    THE   BIBLE. 

^'  With  the  views  which  the  advocates  of  this 
measure  entertaia  of  the  moral  character  of  the 
translators  of  our  version,  I  cannot  see  how  they 
can  have  any  confidence  in  any  part  of  it.  To  be 
consistent,  they  should  throw  it  aside  as  an  un- 
lioly  thing.  If,  as  they  say,  ^  the  king  did  not 
wish  the  meaning  of  haptizo  to  appear/  that 
the  translators  acquiesce,  and  so  '  they  wrap  it 
up,'  what  must  be  the  inevitable  effect  of  such 
an  imputation  upon  those  who  have  the  slightest 
suspicion  of  the  possibility  of  its  truth  ?  There 
never  was  a  mind  formed,  which,  having  taken 
this  step,  could  avoid  at  once,  and  certainly,  taking 
the  next,  and  utterly  surrendering  all  confidence 
in  any  portion  of  the  translation.  All  philosophy 
teaches,  universal  observation  proves,  and  our 
Saviour  himself  declares  :  '  He  that  is  faithful 
in  that  which  is  least,  is  faithful  also  in  much ; 
and  he  that  is  unjust  in  the  least,  is  unjust  also  in 
much.'  If  the  king  did  not  wish  the  meaning  of 
one  word  to  be  known,  and  the  translators  ac- 
quiesced, and  they  wrapped  it  up  in  obscurity,  in 
order  to  conceal  its  true  meaning  from  the  people. 


IMMERSIONISTS    AGAINST    THE    BIELi:.     157 

no  man  wlio  is  not  himself  of  a  base  and  corrupt 
heart  can  have  the  least  degree  of  respect  for 
them,  or  for  any  part  of  their  work,  from  the  be- 
ginning of  Genesis  to  the  end  of  Kevelation.  If 
I  believed  the  tenth  part  of  the  imputations  here 
made  by  'the  only  people'  against  the  forty-seven 
translators,  I  should  scorn  to  have  their  work  on 
my  table.  < 

"  The  charge  against  them  is  infinitely  worse 
than  the  charge  of  theft,  perjury,  piracy,  or 
murder.  With  such  men  I  would  scorn  to  shake 
hands  in  open  daylight.  I  should  fear  to  meet 
such  men  in  the  darkness.  If  I  believed  they 
had  so  little  conscience  as  to  conceal  any  one 
word  in  their  translation,  I  should,  if  it  were  the 
last  act  of  my  life,  consign  to  the  flames  every 
leaf  of  the  Bibles  about  my  house,  and  leave  it 
solemnly  in  charge  to  my  children  to  avoid  them 
as  they  would  the  viper's  poisonous  fang. 

''Do  'the  only  people'  believe  these  charges 

which  they  make  themselves  ?     I  am  amazed  at 

their  patience  and  forbearance.     I  marvel  that, 

standing  up  before  the  world  as  the  ministers  of 
14 


158     IMMERSIONISTS    AGAINST    THE    BIBLE. 

Iieaven  to  their  dying  fellow-men^  and  professing 
to  proclaim  the  unsearchable  riches  of  Christ,  and 
the  way  of  truth  and  holiness,  as  the  way  to  hap- 
piness and  heaven,  they  can  pollute  their  clean 
hands  by  the  touch  of  this  foul,  filthy  thing, 
^crawling  like  a  lizard  from  a  papal  sicamp.' 
How  can  they  excuse  themselves  for  having  held 
up  this  volume  before  their  congregations  for  a 
hundred  years,  as  a  light  to  their  feet,  and  a  lamp 
to  their  pathway,  from  this  dark  world  of  sin,  of 
sorrow,  and  of  death,  to  the  bright  world  of  light, 
life,  and  glor}^  on  high?  Were  they  not  afraid 
of  iha  fearful  plagues  written  in  this  book  ?  If 
the  translators  slavishly  submitted  to  the  manacles 
and  fetters  of  an  arbitrary  despot,  and,  recreant 
to  their  high  and  infinite  obligations  to  God  and 
his  truth,  sold  their  consciences  for  a  mess  of 
pottage,  doled  out  to  them  by  a  wicked  king;  or, 
in  base  cowardice,  and  with  corrupt  purpose,  ab- 
stracted a  single  scruple  from  God's  perfect  word, 
or  added  a  pennyweight  to  its  sacred  teachings, 
they  deserve  the  united  and  endless  execrations  of 
all  mankind." — Ibid. 


TMMERSIONISTS    AGAINST    THE    BIBLE.     159 


CHAPTER    yill. 

THE  IMMERSIONISTS  HAVE  DONE  AND  ARE  DO- 
ING WHAT  THEY  CHARGE  KING  JAMES  WITH 
DOING. 

In  the  previous  chapter,  I  think  it  has  been 
satisfactorily  shown  that  the  charges  against  King 
James  and  the  translators  are  utterly  groundless : 
that  the  translators  were  left  to  as  wide  a  discre- 
tion as  could  with  reason  be  desired ;  that  the 
only  absolute  restriction  laid  upon  them,  as  re- 
gards translation,  was,  that  they  should  give  the 
sense  of  the  original  Hebrew  and  Greek.  And 
certainly  this  cannot  be  objected  to. 

In  this  chapter  I  think  I  will  make  it  appear 
to  every  candid  reader  that  the  sin  which  the 
advocates  of  this  movement  are  charging  upon 
King  James,  they  are  guilty  of  themselves.  And 
it  is  in  accordance  with  oreneral  observation  that 


IGO    IMMERSIONISTS    AGAINST    THE    BIBLE. 

those  who  are  so  reckless  in  their  charges  of 
wrong-doing  on  others,  are  likely  to  be  guilty  of 
the  same  sin,  or  something  worse.  Paul  has 
reference  to  this  when  lie  says,  in  ^'  the  old- 
fashioned  Bible,"  ^^  Therefore  tliou  art  inexcus- 
able, 0  man,  whosoever  thou  art,  that  judgest; 
for  wherein  thou  judgest  another  thou  coudemn- 
est  thyself;  for  thou  that  judgest  doest  the  s^ime 
things." 

That  the  American  and  Foreign  Bible  Society, 
the  Bible  Translation  Society  of  Great  Britain, 
and  the  American  Bible  Union,  have  in  view,  as  a 
sine- qua  non  in  the  versions  they  are  aiming  to 
secure  and  circulate,  that  they  shall  contain  words 
signifying  immerse  in  the  place  of  haptke,  is  fully 
established'  by  the  history  of  the  movement,  ag 
already  presented. 

Why  did  the  Asiatic  and  European  Baptists 
withdraw  from  the  Calcutta  and  British  and 
Foreign  Bible  Societies  ?  Why,  simply  because 
these  Societies  would  not  consent  to  give  money, 
contributed  mainly  by  Pedobaptists,  to  aid  in  tlie 
publication  of  immersionist  versions  of  the  Holy 


IMMERSIONISTS    AGAINST    THE    BIBLE.     161 

Scriptures.  And  wlien  they  had  seceded  for  the 
sake  of  this  principle,  is  it  likely  they  would 
abandon  it  afterwards  ?  Nay,  verily  !  Au'd  ac- 
cordingly, as  has  been  already  shown,  when  the 
Bible  Translation  Society  of  Great  Britain  was 
organized,  the  second  article  of  their  constitution 
set  forth  the  fact  that  they  would  patronize  none 
but  immcrsioniit  versions  of  the  Holy  Scriptures. 
There  can  be  no  doubt,  then,  as  to  the  position  of 
the  English  Baptists.  'They  leave  their  trans- 
lators no  alternative  in  the  translation  of  the 
words  relating  to  the  ordinance  of  baptism.  They 
put  the  ''■  manacles"  on  in  good  earnest.  If  they 
should  patronize  any  other  kind  of  versions,  they 
would  violate  their  constitution.  And  will  they 
do  this  ? 

"Why  did  the  Baptists  and  other  iramersiouists 
secede  from  the  xlmerican  Bible  Society  in  1835  ? 
Simply,  as  the  reader  will  remember,  because  that 
Society  would  not  appropriate  its  funds,  in  viola- 
tion of  the  great  jDrinciple  on  which  the  Society 
was  organized,  to  sustain  immersionist  yersiona 

of  the  Holy  Scriptures. 
14* 


1G2      IMMERSTOXISTS    AGAINST    THE    BIBLE. 

Would  tlieyliave  seceded  from  the  Society  had 
it  not  been  for  their  devotion  to  immersion  ?  Do 
they  compkiin  of  any  thing  else  but  that  the  Ame- 
rican Bible  Society  would  not  permit  haptizo  to 
be  translated  ?  Would  it  not  now  be  very  strange 
and  inconsistent  for  them,  in  view  of  these  facts, 
to  think  of  any  thing  short  of  immersionist  ver- 


sions 


Dr.  Cone,  who  was  for  many  years  President 
of  the  American  and  Foi^ign  Bible  Society,  and 
also  President  of  the  American  Bible  Union  from 
its  organization  to  the  time  of  his  death,  declares 
that  the  American  and  Foreign  Bible  Society 
was  organized  "to  vindicate  a  princij)le ;"  that, 
"in  accordance  with  this  princijjle,  hajjtizo  and 
its  cognates  should  be  translated  by  words  signify- 
ing immerse,'"  etc. 

If  this  be  true,  (and  no  one  can  doubt  that  Dr. 
Cone  knew  for  what  purpose  the  Society  was  or- 
ganized,) how  can  this  Society  be  satisfied  with 
any  thing  short  of  versions  made  upon  this  prin- 
ciple ?  And  we  have  the  very  highest  authority 
to  prove  that  they  are  carrying  out  this  principle 


■  IMMERSIOXISTS    AGAINST    THE    BIBLE.     163 

in  their  translations  into  foreign  tongues.  What 
was  the  character  of  Judson's  version  into  the 
Burmese  tongue,  and  of  Pearse  and  Yates's  into 
the  Bengalee,  and  also  of  the  version  into  the 
Siamese,  from  which  we  have  given  quotations  in 
this  work?  What  is  the  character  of  the  Italian 
and  Spanish  versions,  specimens  of  which  are 
published  by  the  American  Bible  Union  ?  Why, 
they  are  all  immersionist  versions.  Dr.  Cone, 
in  a  speech  before  the  American  Bible  Union,  in 
1850,  complaining  of  the  American  and  Foreign 
Bible  Society  for  deciding  to  be  content  with  the 
common  version  in  English,  thus  speaks  :  "  Hav- 
ing directed  their  missionaries  among  the  heathen 
to  translate  haptizo  and  its  cognates  by  words  sig- 
nifying immerse,  immersion,  etc.,  they  cannot 
long  contiaue  to  be  so  inconsistent  as  to  despise 
or  reject  immersion  in  their  own  vernacular 
tongue." 

Dr.  Cone  says  again:  ^'Either  fear  that  Hhe 
Pedobaptists  will  come  down  upon  us  with  tre- 
mendous power/  as  a  distinguished  brother  said, 
or  shame,  or  some  other  motive  of  which  I  know 


164     IMMERSIONISTS    AGAINST    THE   BIBLE. 

nothing,  deters  many  from  bearing  in  English 
the  same  testimony  for  Christ's  despised  ordinance 
of  immersion  which  they  have  made  it  the  im- 
jperative  duty  of  their  missionaries  to  bear  in  all 
the  languages  of  the  heathen." 

Here  it  is  declared  by  one  as  well  posted  up  on 
this  subject  as  any  man  on  earth,  that  the  Ameri- 
can and  Foreign  Bible  Society  "have  directed 
their  missionaries  in  foreign  countries,"  and 
^^  made  it  their  imperative  duty,  to  translate  bap- 
Tizo  and  its  cognates  by  words  signifying  /m- 
merse,  immersion,''  etc. 

And  the  American  Bible  Union  must  have  in- 
structed their  missionaries  to  the  same  effect.  For 
I  see  in  specimens  of  the  translations  into  the 
Siamese,  the  Italian,  and  the  Spanish  languages 
immerse  is  translated  for  hajitizo.  Could  "  a 
wicked  monarch''  have  done  more  than  this  ? 
They  have  not  merely  required  that  the  translat- 
ors should  be  true  to  the  original,  as  King  James 
did,  but  they  have  anticipated  their  independent 
and  unrestrained  decision,  and  have  "  manacled" 
and  ^'fettered"  them,  to  use  their  own  classical 


IMMERSIONISTS    AGAINST   THE    BIBLE.      165 

phraseology,  so  that  they  are  constrained  to  put 
words  for  haptizo  which  signify  immerse. 

And  from  the  specimens  referred  to  above,  it 
seems  that  "  instead  of  performing  the  work  ac- 
cordino-  to  the  best  of  their  knowledire  and  skill," 
they  have  been  ''  obliged  to  submit  themselves  as 
passive  instruments  in  the  hands,"  not  of  a  mon- 
arch but  of  associations  "  noted  for  passion,  pe- 
dantry, and  self-will;"  and  also  for  bigotry  and 
exclusiveness,  and  the  most  unmitigated  slander 
of  good  men  and  their  work,  in  order  to  carry 
their  point. 

On  account  of  the  instructions  those  trans- 
lators have  received  from  their  masters  and  dic- 
tators, "  they  do  not  feel  at  liberty"  to  translate 
haptizo  by  any  word  that  does  not  signify  im- 
merse. 

These  societies  do  not,  it  seems,  wish  the  mean- 
ing of  the  word  haptizo  to  be  known :  their 
translators  acquiesce ;  '^  and  so,"  if  they  do  not 
"  wrap  it  up,''  they  reject  it,  and  substitute  an- 
other meaning  in  the  place  of  it. 

The  American  Bible  Union  was  organized  be- 


16G      IMMERSIONISTS    AGAINST    THE    BIBLE. 

cause  the  American  and  Foreign  Bible  Society 
would  not  go  far  enough  in  carrying  out  the  great 
^^ principle'^  upon  which  it  was  organized,  viz., 
"  that  baptizo  and  its  cognates  should  be  ren- 
dered by  words  signifying  immerse,"  etc.  And 
yet  they  say  this  is  not  the  main  object  of  the 
movement  at  all.  All  they  are  aiming  at  is  to 
secure  ^^ faithful  versions.^' 

The  American  Bible  Union  "  must  come  to  the 
help  of  the  Lord  against  the  mighty,"  ''  and  show 
to  all  who  understand  our  language  that  hap- 
tism  is  immersion  only  J'  And  yet  they  say  this 
is  not  the  thing  they  are  aiming  to  do  at  all. 

Dr.  Cone  says  if  it  is  right  to  preach  immer- 
sion, ^'■it  is  'right  to  print  it — TO  PRINT  IT  IN  THE 
Bible  ;  for  if  it  is  not  in  the  Bible,  it  is  not  right 
to  preach  it  nor  print  it."  And  yet  they  say 
they  do  not  know  how  the  matter  will  turn  out. 
They  presume  the  translators  will  do  justice  to 
the  meaning  of  the  original.  Their  translators 
of  the  Scriptures  into  foreign  tongues  are  putting 
words  which  signify  immerse  only  in  the  place  of 
haptizo,  and  they  are  publishing  in  their  organ. 


IMMEPvSIONISTS   AGAINST   THE   BIBLE.      167 

the  Bible  Union  Reporter,  specimens  with  this 
peculiarity.  And  yet  they  dischiim  the  sectra-iau 
character  of  the  movement. 

As  regards  the  transhition  of  the  Scriptures 
into  English,  as  carried  forward  by  the  American 
Bible  Union,  it  is  a  matter  of  no  importance 
whom  they  have  employed  or  may  employ  as 
translators — whether  Baptists  or  Pedobaptists — 
their  version  must  be  an  imincrsionist  version. 

They  may  have  committed  the  translation  of 
those  portions  containing  hajJtirjo  and  its  cognates 
to  those  translators  who  are  immersionists  in  prin- 
ciple and  theory.  And  the  Pedobaptist  trans- 
lators may  have  had  committed  to  them  no  portion 
of  the  Scriptures  involving  the  real  issue.  If 
this  be  the  case,  the  translation  will  be  a  sectarian 
version,  though  Pedobaptists,  as  individuals  on 
their  own  responsibility,  may,  "  under  written 
contract"  for  the  sake  of  the  pay,  be  employed. 

But  let  this  be  as  it  may,  the  version  must  be 
immersionist  in  its  character. 

They  say  :  "All  the  revisors  are  distinguished 
scholars^  and  men  of  eminent  ability;"  "  and  this 


1G8      IMMERSIONISTS    AGAINST    THE   BIBLE. 

is  asserted  and  reiterated,  I  suppose  to  give  con- 
fidence that  the  work  will  be  done  in  a  workman- 
like manner.  But  all  this  is  just  no  guaranty  at 
all.  For  the  work  is  to  be  just  what  the  Board 
of  Managers,  Messrs.  Cone,  Wyckoff,  and  Co., 
would  have  it,  or  it  will  not  be  at  all.  They  must 
approve  it  finally  before  it  goes  forth  to  the  world; 
so  that  they  will  be,  in  fact,  the  only  responsible 
authors  of  it,  at  last.  Let  the  reader  mark  the 
following  language  of  the  Fifth  Annual  Report  of 
the  American  Bible  Union  :  ^  Every  book  of  the 
New  Testament  has  been  revised  by  scholars,  and 
the  manuscripts  are  in  the  possession  of  the  Board. 
Of  a  considerable  portion  we  have  also  duplicate 
revisions.  Still,  the  work  is  by  no  means  done. 
Your  Board  have  directed  their  committee  on 
versions  to  examine  carefully  each  manuscript, 
and  to  recommend  none  for  the  press,  unless  they 
are  satisfied  that  the  revision  possesses  such  a  de- 
gree of  merit  that  its  publication  will  do  honor 
to  the  Union.  Otherwise  it  merely  serves  as  aid 
to  other  revisors,  who  will  do  the  work  more 
thoroughly.' 


IMMERSIONISTS    AGAINST    THE    BIBLE.      169 

''  Here  we  have  it,  and  in  language  that  admits 
of  no  mistake.  Every  book  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment has  been  already  revised  by  scholars — and 
the  manuscripts  are  in  the  possession  of  the  Board. 
The  scholars  have  done  their  part.  But  'still  the 
work  is  by  no  means  done.'  The  Board  have  yet 
to  revise  the  revision,  and  pass  their  judgment 
upon  it.  The  committee  on  versions  must  care- 
fully examine  each  manuscript,  and  are  directed 
not  even  to  print  any  portion,  unless  in  their 
judgment  it  is  faithful.  Tlicij  are  to  judge  of 
^thc  degree  of  merit'  which  any  and  every  portion 
of  the  work  may  possess  ;  and  none  are  to  see  the 
light  unless  they  are  satisjfied  !  And  who  are 
'-they?*  Mingled  emotions  of  indignation,  con- 
tempt, and  pity,  must  fill  the  bosom  of  the  en- 
lightened friend  of  Kevelation  on  reading  such 
pretensions  from  such  a  source.  They  boast  of 
the  eminent  ability  of  the  '•  distinguished  scholars' 
'under  written  contract  to  do  their  work,'  and 
make  a  great  '  show  of  generosity  and  catholicity' 
in  confiding  the  work  to  men  holding  their  eccle- 
siastical connections  with  eight  \i\\v.e  now]  deno- 
15 


170     IMMERSIONISTS    AGAINST    THE    BIBLE. 

ruinations  :  and  jet  very  carefully  reserve  to  tliem- 
selves  tlie  privilege  of  supervising  each  manu- 
script, and  of  judging  of  its  merits,  and  throwing 
it  aside  '  if  tliey  are  not  satisfied.' " — (Dr.  A.  New- 
ton, in  the  True  Baptist.) 

I  would  here  make  this  inquiry,  as  of  primary 
importance  :  Are  there  any  Pedobaptists  belong- 
ing to  this  committee  on  revision  ?  Or  are  there 
any  in  the  Board  of  Managers  ? 

What  though  there  should  be  Pedobaptists  in 
the  company  of  translators,  this  committee  have 
the  prerogative  of  determining  what  the  version 
shall  be  in  all  its  parts. 

They  complain  of  the  arbitrary  power  exercised 
in  giving  character  to  the  common  version.  But 
did  King  James  assume  the  prerogative  of  revis- 
ing the  work  of  his  translators?  Or  did  he  ap- 
point a  committee  to  do  it  ? 

Here  is,  under  the  circumstances,  a  most  re- 
markable feature  in  '^the  greatest  enterprise  of 
the  age,"  conducted  by  ''  the  only  people  who  can 
do  justice  to  the  subject,"  and  •'make  a  transla- 
tion worthy  of  the  age." 


IMMERSIONISTS   AGAINST    THE    BIBLE.     171 

The  J  have  great  confidence  in  their  revisors;, 
truly,  that  they  must  revise  their  revision,  and 
not  let  it  see  the  light  unless  it  suits  them  ! 

And  if  they  make  it  to  suit  tliem,  the  reader 
sees  very  clearly  what  kind  of  a  one  it  will  be. 
If  any  proposition  can  be  proved,  we  think  this 
is  proved  :  That,  whoever  the  translators  are,  or 
may  be,  whether  Baptists  or  Pedobaptists,  the 
purpose  is  settled  to  substitute  immerse  for  haj)- 
th:c.  To  prove  this,  we  have  relied  mainly  on  the 
friends  of  the  new  version  movement. 

And  yet  the  very  men  whose  testimony  we 
Lave  quoted  to  prove  this  have  disclaimed  it,  but 
in  some  instances,  in  the  very  same  connection, 
they  have  admitted  it  again.  They  '■'■IjIow  liot  and 
cold  out  of  the  same  mouth"  all  the  time.  And 
no  wonder.  The  nature  of  their  position  con- 
strains them  to  do  so.  They  have  two  parties  in 
their  own  ecclesiastical  ranks  to  conciliate — the 
ultra  immersiouists  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  mo- 
derate on  tbe  other.  They  must  assert  the  main 
design  clearly  enough,  to  please  the  former  3  and 


172     IMMERSIONISTS    AGAINST    THE   BIBLE. 

they  must  disclaim  it  enough  to  avoid,  as  fur  as 
possible,  offending  the  latter. 

They  remind  one  of  the  fable  of  the  farmer 
and  the  fox.  Reynard,  pursued  by  the  huntsmen, 
and  finding  that  he  was  in  danger  of  being  taken, 
passing  by  a  farmer's  premises,  requested  that  he 
might  have  refuge  in  his  barn  ;  and  that  when 
the  huntsmen  should  pass,  and  inquire  if  he  had 
seen  him,  he  should  reply  that  he  knew  nothing 
of  him.  He  consented,  and  agreed  not  to  tell 
where  he  was.  Ile3^nard  had  scarcely  secured  his 
retreat,  when  on  came  the  huntsmen,  and  in- 
quired of  the  farmer  if  he  had  seen  any  thing  of 
a  fox  passing  that  way.  The  farmer,  true  to  his 
promise,  told  them  that  he  had  not,  but  at  the 
same  time  he  2^oinfed  very  significantly  toward 
the  barn.  The  huntsmen  catching  the  idea,  made 
search,  and  took  poor  Reynard. 

Thus  the  advocates  of  this  movement  disclaim 
most  lustily  that  the  design  is  to  put  immerse 
in  the  place  of  haptize.  But,  at  the  same  time, 
the}^  keep  pointing  most  significantly  in  this  very 


IMMERSIONISTS    AGAINST    THE    BIBLE.     173 

direction.  If  they  are  determined,  like  the 
Papists,  Socinians,  Universalists,  Swedenborgians, 
Destructionists,  etc.,  to  have  a  version  conformed 
to  their  views  of  biblical  interpretation,  let  them 
candidly  acknowledge  it,  and  let  them  defend  it 
upon  its  real  merits.  Let  the  public  know  where 
to  find  them. 


15* 


174    IMMERSIONISTS   AGAINST   THE   BIBLE. 


CHAPTER    IX. 

AD  HOMINEM  ARGUMENT    OF  THE  REVISIONISTS. 

In  tliis  chapter  I  resume  and  continue  a  notice 
of  the  expedients  wl  *  h  are  adopted  for  the  pur- 
pose of  securing  favor  for  this  movement. 

How  natural  for  men  to  seek  to  justify  them- 
selves by  endeavoring  to  show  that  'Others  have 
done  or  are  doing,  as  they  have  done  or  are  doing  I 

This  fact  is  very  prominent  in  the  defence 
which  is  made  for  the  new  version  movement. 
Its  friends  seek  to  make  the  impression  that  the 
American  Bible  Society,  in  which  all  the  ortho- 
dox Pedobaptist  denominations  are  represented, 
have  recently  made  a  new  version  of  the  Bible  • 
and,  therefore,  they  argue  that  Pedobaptists  can- 
not, with  any  consistency,  complain  that  they  are 
striving  to  secure  one. 

NoWj  if  it  could  be  established  that  the  Ame- 


IMMERSIONISTS    AGAINST    THE    BIBLE.     175 

rican  Bible  Society  have  really  made  a  new 
version  of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  this  could  not  of 
itself  justify  immersionists  in  making  one  ;  espe- 
cially, such  a  one  as  we  have  proved  they  are 
seeking  to  secure. 

But  to  the  allegation.  From  a  tract,  written 
by  Rev.  Dr.  Lynd,  and  published  by  the  American 
Bible  Union,  I  make  the  following  quotations  : 

^' Let  all  revision  men  throughout  Christendom 
reject  the  new  edition  by  the  American  Bible  So- 
ciety; .  .  .  so  that  it  lever  can  become 'the  com- 
monly received  version.'  Let  us  use  the  old 
editions  until  a  pure  version  can  be  obtained." 

"What  authority  has  the  American  Bible  So- 
ciety to  impose  their  revision  upon  the  Churches 
of  Christ  V 

"Let  their  [the  Baptists']  motto  be,  'Xo  revi- 
sion, or  a  perspicuous  and  faithful  version.'  " 

"Ah !  it  is  enough  to  make  the  heart  sick  to 
hear  of  opposition  to  a  revised  English  Bible,  by 
the  very  persons  who  intend  to  use  and  circulate 
hereafter  the  revised  editions  of  the  American 
Bible  Society." 


176     IMMERSIONISTS   AGAINST    THE    BIBLE. 

» 

1  quote  again  from  a  speech  of  the  Rev.  Mr. 
EackuSj  before  the  American  Bible  Union,  as  pub- 
lished in  the  Bible  Union  Reporter  for  January, 
1S55  :  ^' We  are  doing  just  what  the  best  of  men 
have  done  before  us — trjdng  to  make  perfect  our 
version  of  the  Holy  Scriptures ;  anrl  whoever 
condemns  us  for  so  doing,  must  be  prepared  to 
condemn  with  us  WyclifFe  and  Tyndale — those 
men  of  God  to  whom  we  are  so  largely  indebted 
for  our  already  excellent  version  of  the  Scriptures. 
Yes,  and  Coverdale,  and  Cranmer,  and  Parker, 
with  the  bishops  and  King  James's  revisers,  and 
the  managers  of  the  American  Bible  Society, 
must  all  fall  under  the  same  censure,  for  these 
have  all,  at  one  time  or  another,  been  guilty  of 
the  same  thing." 

The  design  of  this  language  is,  I  fear,  to  make 
a  false  impression.  It  is  true,  Dr.  L.  calls  the  edition 
of  the  Holy  Scriptures  lately  published  by  the  Ame- 
rican Bible  Society  a  "revision ;'^  and  he  admits 
that  the  friends  of  the  Bible  Union  are  seeking  a 
"  version."  But  this  care  in  the  use  of  terms  is  ob- 
served only  in  order  that  they  may  not  be  involved 


IMMERSIONISTS    AGAINST    THE    BIBLE.     177 

in  difficulties,  or  may  have  a  chance  of  exphiiuing 
out ;  while  the  evident  tendency  is  to  make  the 
impression  that  the  American  Bible  Society  have 
made  a  neiu  translation  of  the  Holy  Scriptures. 

The  Rev.  Mr.  Backus  is  much  more  cautious  in 
the  use  of  language.  He  contends  that  the  friends 
of  this  new  version  movement  are  only  seeking 
to  improve  the  common  version  :  that  they  have 
precedent  for  this :  that  even  the  American  Bible 
Society  have  set  them  a  precedent. 

Now,  here  is  an  effort  to  keep  out  of  view  a 
main  point;  and  that  is,  that  the  improvement  (?) 
mainly  sought  in  this  movement  is  the  substitu- 
tion of  immerse  and  its  cognates,  in  the  Bible,  for 
baptize;  and  thus  make  the  Bible  sectarian  in 
its  teachings.  But  have  the  American  Bible  So- 
ciety done  this?  Have  they  made  a  sectarian 
version  ?     Have  they  made  any  vei'sion  at  all  ? 

The  following  quotation  from  the  Report  of  the 
American  Bible  Society  for  1852,  page  33,  will 
show  what  was  contemplated  in  the  incipiency  of 
the  measure: 

"In   one  of   the    late    reports,  the    managers 


lib     I.MMERSIONTSTS    AGAINST    THE    B./LE. 

Stated  that,  "witli  all  the  pains  taken  to  keep  the 
text  of  the  English  Bible  correct,  it  was  found 
that  minor  differences  existed  in  different  copies 
issued  by  the  Society,  and  also  among  those  pub- 
lished by  the  several  presses  in  England.  Al- 
though these  different  readings  did  not  affect  the 
sense,  as  they  pertained  mostly  to  ortliograi^Jiy, 
italic  words,  capital  letters,  and  p>unctuat ion,  yet 
it  seemed  highly  important  that  there  should  be, 
if  possible,  uniformity  in  these  particulars.  They 
were  specially  desirous  that  the  copies  issued  by 
the  Society  should  be  correct,  and  in  harmony 
with  one  another.  The  committee  on  versions^ 
composed  of  several  different  denominations — 
some  of  the  members  familiar  with  investigations 
of  this  kind — were  instructed  to  take  measures 
for  a  careful  collation  of  the  Society's  Bibles, 
and  those  issued  by  the  British  and  Foreign  Bible 
Society.'' 

I  have  before  me  the  Report  of  the  Committee 
on  Aversions,  adopted  May  1,  1851,  after  the 
work  of  collation  had  been  completed. 

From  this  report  we  learn  that,  in  accordance 


IMMERSIONISTS   AGAINST    THE    BIBLE.      179 

with  the  above  instructions,  the  Committee  on 
Versions,  after  various  meetings,  fixed  upon  the 
following  rules,  which  should  serve  for  guidance 
in  the  work  of  collation ;  and  it  will  be  observed 
that  in  these  rules  the  instructions  of  the  Board 
to  the  Committee  are  fully  recognized,  and  are 
not  transcended : 

"1.  The  royal  octavo  edition  of  the  Englisli 
Bible,  issued  by  the  Society,  be  adopted  as  the 
basis  for  corrections, 

''  2.  That  the  said  American  copy  be  compared 
with  recent  copies  of  the  four  leading  British 
editions,  viz.,  those  of  Loudon,  Oxford,  Cambridge, 
and  Edinburgh,  and  also  with  the  original  edition 
of  1611. 

^*  3.  That  the  comparison  include  the  ortlio- 
graplii/,  the  capital  letters,  icorcls  in  italic,  punc- 
tuation, contents  of  the  cliap>ters,  and  running 
heads  of  the  columns. 

'^4.  That  so  far  as  the  four  English  copies  are 
uniform,  the  American  copy  be  conformed  to 
them,  unless  otherwise  specially  ordered  by  the 
Committee. 


180    IMMERSIONISTS    AGAINST   THE   BIBLE. 

'^5.  That  the  collator  be  instructed^  in  his 
further  labors,  [this  rule  was  adopted  after  the 
work  was  begun,]  to  apply  the  principles  and 
cases  previously  adopted  and  decided  by  this  Com- 
mittee, and  that,  therefore,  he  lay  before  the 
Committee  only  such  cases  as  have  not  before 
been  acted  upon,  or  such  as  may  seem  to  need 
further  consideration. 

''  6.  That  in  respect  to  the  indefinite  article, 
the  form  an  to  be  used  before  all  vowels  and  diph- 
thongs not  pronounced  as  consonants,  and  also 
before  li  silent  or  unaccented ;  and  that  the  form 
a  be  employed  in  all  other  cases. 

''7.  That  in  cases  where  the  four  recent 
British  copies,  and  also  the  original  edition  and 
our  own  copy,  vary  in  punctuation,  the  uniform 
usage  of  any  three  of  the  copies  shall  be  followed. 

"  8.  That,  when  the  London,  the  Oxford,  and 
Cambridge  editions  agree  in  the  use  or  omis- 
sion of  the  hyphen  in  compound  words,  the  same 
usage  to  be  adopted. 

"9.  That  when  the  term  scripture  or  scrips 
tures   refers   to   the  whole   volume   of  inspired 


IMMERSIONISTS   AGAINST   THE    BIBLE.     181 

truth,  it  begin  with  a  capital  letter;  but  when 
the  reference  is  to  some  particular  portioU;  it  be- 
gin with  a  small  letter." 

It  is  proper  to  state  that  the  Rev.  J.  W.  Mc- 
Lane  was  employed  as  collator;  and,  for  the 
greater  convenience,  the  Committee  appointed  a 
sub-committee,  consisting  of  Drs.  Robinson  and 
Yermilye,  ''to  inspect  the  alterations  suggested 
by  the  collator,  and  see  that  they  are  made  ac- 
cording to  the  rules  prescribed ;  and  if  cases  of 
pieculiar  importance  arise,  to  consult  the  entire 
Committee/' 

These  rules  show  what  the  Committee  were  en- 
gaged to  do — not  to  make  or  secure  a  new  trans- 
lation or  version,  but  to  make  a  collation  for  the 
purpose  of  correcting  errors  that  had  crept  into 
the  commonly  received  version. 

This  will  appear  more  distinctly  in  the  lan- 
guage of  the  Committee  : 

"It  will   be  apparent,  from   an   inspection  of 

the  rules  above  given,  that  the  great  and  leading 

object  of    the  Committee  has  everywhere    been 

uniformity.     It  is  only  when  the  British  copies 

16 


182     IMMERSIONISTS    AGAINST    THE   BIBLE. 

differ  that  any  question  has  been  raised^  except 
in  a  few  instances,  to  be  noted  in  the  seqneL  It 
has  been  the  wish  and  endeavor  of  the  Committee 
to  see  the  English  version  restored,  so  far  as  pos- 
sible, to  its  original  purity,  saving  the  necessary 
changes  of  orthograplii/,  and  other  like  variations, 
which  would  assuredly  be  acceptablorto  the  trans- 
lators themselves,  were  they  living  at  the  present 
day.  The  Committee  have  had  no  authority  and 
no  desire  to  go  behind  the  translators,  nor  in  any 
respect  to  touch  the  original  version  of  the  text, 
unless  in  evident  cases  of  inadvertence  or  incon- 
sistency, open  and  manifest  to  all." 

I  will  now  cite  a  few  specimens  of  variations 
secured  by  the  Committee,  to  show  that  the  de- 
sign of  the  measure,  as  thus  expressed,  was  fully 
maintained.  I  will  notice  each  class  of  variations, 
as  laid  down  in  the  report,  and  will  select  one  or 
more  specimens  from  each. 

''1.  Words. — In  Ruth  iii.  15,  all  the  present 
copies  read  :  'And  »lie  went  into  the  city ;'  but  the 
Hebrew  and  translators  have  it :  'And  lie  went 
into  the  city.'     Again,  in  Cant.  ii.  1,  all  the  pre- 


IMMERSIONISTS   AGAINST    THE   BIBLE.     183 

sent  copies  read :  '  Nor  awake  my  love  till  Jie 
please ;'  but  the  Hebrew  and  the  translators,  '  till 
she  please.'  In  Isaiali  i.  16,  the  present  copies 
read,  '  Wash  yow/  where  the  translators  put, 
'Wash  1/e.'  This  is  according  to  the  Hebrew, 
and  has  been  restored.  Another  change  occurs 
in  Josh.  xix.  2,  where  the  recent  copies  read : 
^  and  Sheba;'  but  the  translators  have,  '  o?-  She- 
ba.'  Here  the  Hebrew  may,  itself,  be  taken 
either  way;  but  the  number  of  thirteen  cities 
specified  in  verse  6  requires  or. 

"2.  Orthography.— The  Committee  enter- 
tain a  reverence  for  the  antique  forms  of  words 
and  orthography  in  the  Bible,  where  they  do  not 
conflict  with  the  clear  understanding  of  the  sense. 
Indeed,  it  is  such  forms,  in  a  measure,  which  im- 
part an  air  of  dignity  and  venerableness  to  our 
version.  For  this  reason,  phrases  like,  '  hoised 
up  the  mainsail,'  (x\cts  xxvii.  40,)  also  words 
like  'graff'  and  'graffed,'  (Rom.  xi.  17,  19,  23, 
24,)  have  not  been  altered.  But  when  these 
forms  have  become  obsolete  and  unintelligible ; 
or  have  already  been  changed  in  some  places,  and 


184     IMMERSIONISTS    AGAINST    THE    BIBLE, 

not  ill  others;  or  when  ia  themselves  they  are 
of  DO  importance,  there  seems  to  be  no  valid  rea- 
son for  longer  retaining  them.  By  far  the  greater 
portion  of  the  readers  of  the  English  Bible  are 
unlearned  persons  and  children ;  and  it  is  essen- 
tial to  remove  every  thing  in  the  mere  form, 
which  may  become  to  any  a  stumbling-block  in 
the  way  of  the  right  and  prompt  understanding 
of  God's  holy  word. 

''The  following  examples  still  occur  in  the  Eng- 
lish editions;  but  have  mostly  already  been 
changed  in  the  Edinburgh  and  American  copies. 
Many  of  them  are  variations  from  the  edition  of 
1611: 


ENGLISH  COPIES. 

COBKECTED. 

Gen.  Yiii.  1, 

asswaged. 

assuaged. 

"     xi.  3, 

morter. 

mortar. 

((      11  it 

throughly. 

thoroughly,  (tr. 
Cam.) 

"     XXX.  35, 

ringstraked. 

rmgstreaked. 

"       "     37, 

strakes. 

streaks. 

"     xxxi.  10, 

gi'isled. 

grizzled. 

Ex.  vi.  21, 

Zithri.  (prob.  error  Zichri  ^tr.  Edin  ) 

of  press.) 

*•    xxxii.  20, 

strowed. 

strewed. 

Lev.  xiv.  42, 

plaister 

plaster. 

IMMERSIONISTS    AGAINST    THE    BIBLE.     185 


EIsGLTSH  COPIES. 

CORRECTED. 

Num.  X.  25, 

rereward. 

rearward. 

"      XX.  U, 

travel. 

travail. 

Deut.  xiv.  15, 

cuckow. 

cuckoo. 

"     XV.  17, 

aul. 

awl. 

Judges  V.  22, 

pran  sings. 

prancings. 

Ruth  i.  18, 

stedfastlj. 

steadfastly. 

2  Sam.  XV.  12, 

counseller.  (tr. 
Lond.  Cam.) 

counsellor. 

1  Kings  vi.  15, 

cieling.  (tr.  sieling^ 

1  ceiling. 

2  Cbron.  ii.  16, 

,  fiotes. 

floats. 

Neb.  ix.  1, 

sackclotbes. 

sackcloth,   (as  in 
Joel  i.  13.) 

Isa.  xli.  2, 

sodering. 

soldering. 

Jer.  ii.  22, 

sope. 

soap. 

Ezra  xl.  31, 

utter  court. 

outer  court. 

Zecb.  xi.  13, 

pris-ed. 

prized. 

Matt,  xxvii.  48, 

spunge. 

sponge. 

Acts  vii.  28, 

diddest. 

didst. 

Epb.  v.  8, 

sometimes. 

sometime,  (i.  e., 
once,  formerly.) 

1  Tim.  ii.  9, 

broidered.  (tr. 
broided.) 

braided. 

Rev.  xiv.  20, 

horse  bridles. 

horses'   bridles,   (so 
the  Greek.) 

"A  variation  likewise  occurs  in  the  mode  of 

writing  tlie    imperfect   and  participle  of  many 

verbs;  all  of  wliich  have  been  corrected  to  the 

present  standard.     The  following  are  examples  : 

16* 


186    IMMERSIONISTS   AGAINST    THE   BIBLE. 

Gen.  viii.  11,  'pluckt/  but  'plucked/  Deut. 
xxviii.  63.  Gen.  xviii.  7,  'fetcht/  but  in  verse 
4,  '  fetched.'  Gen.  xxi.  7,  '  have  born/  in  recent 
copies;  the  translators^  correctly,  'have  borne.' 
Deut.  ii.  37,  'forbad,'  in  recent  copies;  the 
translators,  correctly,  'forbade.'  Ezra  ix.  3, 
'astonied;'  and  so  in  all  the  copies:  Job  xviii. 
20;  Ezra  iv.  17;  Dan.  iii.  24,  etc.  In  some 
passages  this  has  been  already  changed  to  '  aston- 
ished,' as  in  Job  xvii.  8. 

"  In  expressing  the  plurals  of  such  Hebrew 
words  as  are  not  rendered  in  the  text,  the  trans- 
lators adopted  the  plural  form  of  the  Hebrew  in 
im,  but  with  the  superfluous  addition  of  s;  as 
cherubims,  sercqjhims,  Nefhimims,  Anakims,  etc. 
This  is  strictly  wrong,  and  is  not  in  accordance 
with  present  usage.  The  s  has  therefore  every- 
where been  dropped  in  such  words :  as  Gen.  iii. 
24,  Isa.  vi.  2,  6,  etc. 

"In  respect  to  ih.e i-) articles  of  exclamation j  0 
and  Oh,  it  appears,  on  examination,  that  the  for- 
mer (0)  is  everywhere  used  before  a  vocative 
case ;  while  before  an  optative  we  find  both  :  '  O 


IMMERSIONISTS    AGAINST    THE    B[BLE.     187 

that,'  Deut  xxxii.  29,  Ps.  Iv.  6;  and  ^  Oh  that,' 
Job  vi.  2,  Jer.  ix.  1.  In  order  to  maintain  the 
proper  distinction,  the  form  Oh  has  everywhere 
been  retained  with  the  optative,  leaving  0  as  the 
sign  of  the  vocative. 

^'  The  forms  of  the  indefinite  article  a  or  an  have 
been  adjusted  throughout  according  to  the  sixth 
rule  above  given.  In  order  to  show  the  necessity 
of  the  rule,  the  following  examples  of  inconsist- 
ency in  all  the  copies,  from  first  to  last,  are  here 
selected : 

'^Gen.  XXV.  25,  ^an  hairy;'  Gen.  xxvii.  11,  'a 
hairy.'  Judges  iv.  21,  ^an  hammer/  Jer.  xxiii. 
29,  'a  hammer.'  Isa.  xi.  16,  ^  an  highway;' 
Is.  xix.  23,  '  a  highway.'  Matt.  x.  12,  ^  an  house ;' 
Mark  iii.  25,  'a  house.'  Ruth  i.  12,  'an  hus- 
band;' Ruth  i.  12,  'a  husband.' 

''  2.  Proper  Names. — There  exists  in  the  Oia 
Testament  a  very  considerable  diversity  in  the 
mode  of  writing  Hebrew  proper  names  in  Eng- 
lish. Thus,  the  names  of  the  first  seven  patri- 
archs of  the  world,  as  they  appear  in  Gen.,  chap, 
iv.,  and  as    they  are  now  usually  written,  are: 


188     IMMERSIONISTS    AGAINST    THE    BIBLE. 

Adam,  Seth,  Enos,  Cainan,  Mahalaleel,  Jared,  . 
Enoch.  But  in  1  Chron.  i,  1,  sq.,  tlie  same  are 
recorded  as  :  Adam,  Shetli,  Enosh,  Kenan,  Ma- 
halaleel, Jered,  Henoch;  the  Hebrew  forms 
being  in  both  places  precisely  the  same.  This  is 
but  a  single  specimen,  and  shows  at  least  an  in- 
advertence on  the  part  of  the  translators.  In 
some  instances,  also,  there  is  a  slight  difference 
even  in  the  Hebrew  forms  themselves,  in  differ- 
ent books.  In  cases  like  the  preceding,  involv- 
ing, as  they  do,  a  difference  of  pronunciation, 
the  Committee  have  not  felt  themselves  author- 
ized to  make  any  change,  regarding  the  great 
principle  of  uniformity  in  the  copies  as  of  higher 
importance. 

"  In  the  New  Testament  the  case  is  somewhat 
different.  Here  it  is  to  be  regrettedj  that  in  re- 
spect to  persons  already  known  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, the  translators  did  not  retain  their  names 
in  the  form  in  which  they  had  thus  become  fami- 
liar. Instead  of  this,  they  have  introduced  the 
personages  of  ancient  Jewish  history  under  names 
modified,  and  sometimes  disguised,  by  transmission 


IMMERSIONISTS    AGAINST    THE   BIBLE.      189 

tlirough  the  Greek  tongue.  Thus,  in  Acts  vii. 
45j  and  Heb.  iv.  8,  we  find  the  name  Jesus,  which 
the  common  reader  will  naturally  refer  only  to  the 
Saviour;  while  in  reality  it  is  simply  the  Greek 
form  for  Joshua,  and  should  properly  have  been 
so  written.  In  the  same  way  the  name  Core  in 
Jude  11  is  unintelligible  to  most  readers;  for 
comparatively  few  would  ever  suspect  its  identity 
with  Korah  of  the  Old  Testament.  So,  too,  the 
translators  have  sometimes  taken  the  form  of  the 
Greek  genitive  Juda,  Jona,  to  represent  the  He- 
brew names  JudaJi,  Jonah, 

"  The  principle  adopted  in  such  cases  has  been 
the  following  :  When  such  names  occur  singly  in 
the  narrative,  and  there  would  arise  no  marked 
difference  in  the  pronunciation,  the  form  in  the 
Old  Testament  has  been  restored.  The  name 
Jesus,  as  above  cited,  is  explained  in  the  margin 
by  the  translators  themselves.  The  following  are 
examples  : 


FORMER    READING. 

CORRECTED. 

"Matt.  ii.  6,  Juda. 

Judali. 

"     X.  15,  Gomorrha. 

Gomorrah 

190      IMMERSIONISTS    AGAINST    THE    BIBLE. 


FORMER   READING. 

CORRECTED. 

Matt.  xxi.  5,  Sion. 

Zion. 

"     xxiv.  37,  Noe. 

Noah. 

Acts   vii.  11,  Chanaan. 

Cauaan. 

■     "     vii.  30,  Sina. 

Sinai. 

Heb.  xi.  11,  Sara. 

Sarah. 

Rev.  ii.  14,  Balac. 

Balak. 

^'3.  Compound  Words. — The  eiglitli  rule  pre- 
scribes that  the  usage  of  the  English  copies  be 
followed  in  respect  to  the  insertion  or  omission  of 
the  hyphen  in  compound  words.  It  was  found 
that  the  Edinburgh  and  American  copies  employ 
the  hyphen  in  very  many  instances  where,  by  the 
operation  of  the  rule,  it  has  been  dropped.  In 
such  cases,  generally,  the  words  have  afterwards 
been  written  as  one  word,  or  as  tico  words,  accord- 
ing as  the  accent  in  pronunciation  is  placed  upon 
the  first  word,  or  otherwise.  Thus,  hedchamher, 
handmaid ;  but  meat  offering,  hurnt  sacrifice 
This  accords  for  the  most  part  with  the  English 
copies. 

^^4.  Capital  Letters. — The  ninth  rule  pro- 
vides for  the  manner  of  writing  the  term  scrip- 


IMMERSIONISTS    AGAINST    THE    BIBLE.      191 

ture  and  scriptures,  with  or  witliout  a  capital 
letter.  A  similar  rule  lias  been  followed  in  prac- 
tice in  respect  to  tlie  word  "Sjn'ri'f,"  which  every- 
where is  made  to  begin  with  a  capital  when  it  re- 
fers to  the  Spirit  of  God  as  a  Divine  Agent ;  but 
not  when  it  denotes  other  spiritual  beings,  or  the 
spirit  of  man.  The  following  is  a  specimen  of 
the  changes  which  have  been  made  : 

ENGLISH  COPIES.  CORRECTED. 

Gen.  vi.  3,  My  spirit.  My  Spirit. 

(So  too  Gen.  xli,  38  :  Num.  xxiv.  2.) 
Ps.  xxi.  7,  most  High.  Most  High. 

Tsa.  Ixiii.  10,  holy  Spirit.  Holy  Spirit. 

Rev.  iv.  5,  seven  Spirits  of        seven  spirits  of  God. 
God. 

"5.  Words  in  Italics. — These  were  inserted 
by  the  translators  to  fill  out  the  English  idiom,  in 
cases  where  the  Hebrew  and  Greek  usage  omits 
the  copula  or  other  connecting  or  dependent 
words.  These  insertions  were  carefully  revised 
and  compared  with  the  original  by  Dr.  Blaney; 
but  notwithstanding  his  diligence,  quite  a  num- 
ber of  errors  have  been  detected,  some  of  which 


192     IMMERSIONISTS    AGAINST    THE    BIBLE. 

belong  to  the  translators.  The  following  are  ex- 
amples : 

^^Ex.  viii.  21,  22,  24,  29,  31.  Here  the  re- 
cent copies  all  read,  'swarms  of  flies  f  while  in 
Ps.  Ixxviii.  45,  and  cv.  31,  the  same  Hebrew 
word  is  rendered,  '  divers  sorts  of  flies,'  withoul 
italics.  In  all  these  passages  the  edition  of  1611 
has  no  italics. 

'' Judges  ix.  53.  The  edition  of  1611  and  all 
others  read:  'And  all  to  break  his  skull.'  This 
has  been  often  misunderstood,  and  has  been  some- 
times printed :  'And  all  to  brake.'  But  '  all 
to'  is  an  antique  form,  signifying  'altogether,' 
and  was  last  so  used  by  Milton.  It  here  gives  an 
emphasis  to  'brake'  which  is  not  in  Hebrew. 
The  Committee  have  therefore  put  all-to  in  italics, 
with  a  hyphen,  and  have  inserted  a  note  of  ex- 
planation in  the  margin. 

"Luke  i.  35  :  'Which  shall  be  born  of  thee.' 
So  in  all  the  copies  first  and  last;  but  the  words 
of  tliee  should  be  in  italic ;  there  being  nothing- 
corresponding  in  the  Greek. 

"John  X.  28,  29:   'Any  man  ....  no  man.' 


IMMER3I0NISTS    AGAINST    THE    BICLE.      19o 

So  in  the  edition  of  1611.  The  Oxford  copy 
rightly  reads,  'Any  man  ....  no  man  f  the 
Edinburgh  and  American  have,  '  any  .  .  .  none/ 
corrected^  like  the  Oxford,  '  any  man  ....  no 
man.' 

^'6.  Punctuation. — It  was  found  that  the 
three  English  copies  have  a  general  uniformity  in 
respect  to  punctuation,  especially  in  the  frequent 
use  of  the  colon;  while  the  Edinburgh  and  Ame- 
rican often  prefer  the  semicolon,  and  are  in  gen- 
eral more  conformed  to  the  edition  of  1611.  The 
seventh  rule  prescribes  that  Hhe  uniform  usage 
of  any  three  of  the  copies  shall  be  followed.'  In 
the  great  majority  of  instances,  the  operation  of 
the  rule  has  produced  conformity  with  the  Eng- 
lish copies.  In  cases  where  the  rule  was  not  ap- 
plicable, the  Committee  have  endeavored  to  decide 
each  according  to  its  merits. 

*'  The  following  five  changes  made  in  the  punc- 
tuation, are  all,  it  is  believed,  which  affect  the 
sense  : 

*'  Rom.  iv.  1 :  '  That  Abraham,  our  father  as 
pertaining  to  the  flesh,  hath  found.'  Here,  ac- 
17 


194     IMMERSIONISTS    AGAINST   THE   BIBLE. 

cording  to  the  order  of  the  Greek,  it  should  read : 
'  hath  found  as  pertaining  to  the  flesh.'  The  true 
pointing,  therefore^  is  a  comma  after  Abraham, 
and  another  after  father.  This  is  found  in  no 
edition  hitherto. 

^'  1  Cor.  xvi.  22  :  ^  Let  him  be  Anathema  Mar- 
an-atha.'  There  should  be  a  period  after  Ana- 
thema, which  no  edition  inserts.  The  two  words 
^maran  atha'  are  simply  an  Aramean  formula, 
signifying  '  The  Lord  cometh.'  Compare  Phil, 
iv.  5. 

"2  Cor.  X.  8-11.  All  the  copies  now  have  a 
colon  after  verse  8,  and  a  period  after  verse  9,  con- 
necting the  two  verses  in  sense.  The  true  point- 
ing, however,  is  a  period  after  verse  8,  and  then 
a  colon  after  verse  9,  and  also  verse  10  ;  thus  con- 
necting verse  9  as  protasis  with  verse  11  as  apo- 
dasis.  So  Chrysostom,  and  so  the  Syriac  and 
Latin  versions ;  and  this  is  required  by  the  logi- 
cal sequence. 

"  Ilcb.  xiii.  7.  Here  should  be  a  period  at  the 
end  of  the  verse  after  conversation.'  So  the  trans- 
lators, the  Oxford  and  other  copies.     The  Edin- 


IMMERSIONISTS   AGAINST    THE   BIBLE.      195 

burgli  aud  American  have  sometimes  a  colon,  and 
sometimes  a  comma. 

"Rev.  xiii.  8.  Here  a  comma  is  inserted  after 
^ slain;'  since  the  qualification  'from  the  foun- 
dation of  the  world'  refers  not  to  ^  slain/  but  to 
'written;'  as  is  shown  by  the  parallel  verse,  Rev. 
xvii.  8  :  the  translators  wrongly  insert  a  comma 
after  '  Lamb ;'  others  put  no  stop  at  all. 

"7.  Parentheses. — Our  collation  has  shown 
that  very  many  parentheses  have  been  introduced 
into  the  text  since  the  edition  of  1611.  Some 
of  these  are  fit  and  proper ;  but  in  general  they 
only  mar  the  beauty  of  the  page,  without  adding 
any  thing  to  perspicuity.  In  some  instances,  too, 
they  have  the  force  of  commentary.  For  these 
reasons,  those  not  inserted  by  the  translators  have 
been  in  great  part  omitted  :  as  in  Rom.  v.  13-17 ; 
xi.  8  :  2  Cor.  xii.  2  :  Gal.  i.  1  :  Rev.  ii.  9,  etc. 

''  8.  Brackets. — These  are  found  but  once — 1 
John  ii.  2-3,  enclosing  the  last  clause  of  the  verse, 
which  the  translators  put  in  italics.  This  was 
done  because  that  clause  was  not  then  contained 
in  the  received  text  of  the  Greek  New  Testament; 


196     IMMERSIONISTS    AGAINST    THE    BIBLE. 

although  the  sense  requires  it^  and  it  was  read  in 
the  best  manuscripts  and  in  the  versions.  The 
clause  is  now  inserted  in  all  critical  editions  of 
the  Greek  Testament;  and,  as  there  is  no  ques- 
tion of  its  genuineness,  both  the  brackets  and  the 
italics  have  been  dropped.'^ 

These  examples  are  sufficient  to  show  the  na- 
ture of  the  work  which  the  American  Bible  So- 
ciety have  secured.  I  might  have  given  speci- 
mens of  the  changes  made  in  the  contents  of  the 
chapters,  the  running  heads  of  the  columns,  the 
marginal  readings  and  references,  and  chronology; 
but  as  these  do  not  affect  the  text,  it  is  not  neces- 
sary to  do  so. 

The  Committee  use  the  following  language  in 
closing  their  report :  '^  Such  is  the  account  which 
the  Committee  have  to  render  to  the  Board  of 
Managers,  of  their  stewardship  in  this  work ;  al- 
though this  account,  and  the  few  specimens  above 
presented,  can  of  course  afford  no  adequate  idea 
of  the  time,  the  attention,  and  the  labor  bestowed 
on  the  work  by  the  sub-committee  and  the  col- 
lator during  the  period  of  three  years.     And  now, 


IMMERSI0NIST3    AGAINST    THE    BIBLE.     197 

invoking  the  continued  blessing  of  the  Most  High, 
and  with  a  deep  sense  of  their  own  imperfections, 
the  Committee  would  commend  the  result  of  their 
labors  to  the  favorable  consideration  of  the  Board, 
as  also  of  the  Society,  and  of  the  Christian  pub- 
lic. They  claim  no  special  freedom  from  error : 
they  may,  very  possibly,  not  always  have  fully 
carried  out  their  own  rules  :  they  may  have  com- 
mitted oversights.  But  they  shrink  from  no  re- 
sponsibility ;  and  they  have  no  desire  to  cover  up, 
either  what  they  have  done,  or  what  they  have  left 
undone.  The  thing  has  not  been  done  in  a  corner. 
"As  illustrating  the  necessity  of  the  present  col- 
lation, and  the  remarks  already  made  upon  the 
exposure  to  variation  and  error  in  the  printing  of 
so  many  millions  of  "copies,  it  may  suffice  here  to 
mention  that  the  number  of  variations  recorded 
by  the  collator,  solely  in  the  text  and  punctuation 
of  the  six  copies  compared,  falls  but  little  short 
of  ticentij-four  tJwusand.  Yet  of  all  this  great 
number,  there  is  not  one  which  mars  the  integrity 
of  the  text,  or  affects  any  doctrine  or  precept  of 
the  Bible. 

17* 


11)8     IMMERSIONISTS    AGAINST    THE    BIBLE. 

^^lu  thus  closing  their  labors^  the  Committee  de- 
sire, with  grateful  praise  to  God,  difitinclly  and 
formally  to  state,  that  no  decUion  icliatevcr  has 
been  made,  and  nothing  ivhatever  has  heen  donCj 
except  with  entire  unanimity  on  the  ixirt  of  the 
Committee  arid  those  acting  with  them." 

It  is  proper  to  give  the  reader  the  names  of 
the  eminent  men  composing  the  Committee  on 
Versions,  and  which  are  appended  to  the  report 
from  which  we  have  made  the  above  quotations. 
They  are  as  follows  :  Grardiner  Spring,  Thomas 
Cock,  Samuel  H.  Turner,  Edward  Robinson, 
Thomas  E.  Vermilye,  John  McClintock,  Richard 
S.  Storrs. 

I  will  conclude  on  this  point  with  a  few 
remarks : 

1.  The  work  accomplished  under  the  auspices 
of  the  American  Bible  Society  is  not  a  version  or 
translation  at  all,  but  a  collation.  Let  this  be 
noted  by  the  reader.  Collation,  as  used  in  this 
case,  means  comparison  of  some  six  editions  of 
the  English  Bible,  embracing  the  edition  of  1611 
as  the  standard,  for  the  purpose    of   correcting 


IMMERSIONISTS    AGAINST    THE    BIBLE.     199 

errors  wliich  had  accidentally  crept  into  the 
Scriptures.  There  was  no  translation  from  the 
original  Hebrew  and  Greek,  but  a  mere  correc- 
tion of  errors  that  had  gotten  into  a  translation 
already  made  and  acknowledged  as  the  standard. 
The  object  of  the  Committee  simply,  to  use  their 
own  language,  "  was  to  restore  the  English  ver- 
sion to  its  original  purity."  They  affirm  that 
they  "  had  no  authority  and  no  desire  to  go  be- 
hind the  translators,  nor  in  any  respect  to  touch 
the  original  version  of  the  text." 

Except  in  orthography  and  inadvertencies 
open  and  manifest  to  all,  they  have  not  touched 
the  original  version.  This  is  fully  and  strikingly 
illustrated  in  the  foregoing  specimens  of  the  varia- 
tions they  have  made.  In  this  respect,  what 
the  American  Bible  Society  have  done  is  entirely 
different  from  what  the  American  Bible  Union 
are  engaged  in  doing.  They  have  denounced 
the  common  version  as  unfaithful  to  the  original; 
and  are  seeking  a  new  version,  which,  as  they 
claim,  will  be  a  more  faithful  exhibition  of  the 
original  Scriptures. 


200     IMMERSIONISTS    AGAINST    THE    BIBLE. 

2.  The  work  accomplished  by  the  American 
Bible  Society  is  not  sectarian  in  its  character. 
The  learned  men  employed  in  the  collation 
belong  to  and  represented  the  denominations  who 
patronize  the  Society.  And  we  learn  from  their 
reports  that  every  thing  they  did  was  agreed 
upon  ^'with  ENTIRE  unanimity/'  and  then 
finally  approved  and  adopted  by  the  Board  of 
Managers  and  the  whole  Society,  But  is  the 
translation  sought  by  the  American  Bible  Union 
to  be  non-sectarian  in  its  character  ?  If  any  pro- 
position can  be  proved,  we  have  already  proved, 
by  an  amount  and  character  of  evidence  perfectly 
overwhelming  to  the  unprejudiced  mind,  that 
this  new  version  movement  was  conceived  in  a 
desire  to  put  immerse  and  its  cognates  in  the 
place  of  haptize  and  its  cognates;  and  that  it  has 
been  prosecuted  up  to  this  time  mainly  for  the 
accomplishment  of  this  object. 

Let  the  enemies  of  the  common  version  show 
one  instance  in  which  a  change  has  been  nnide  in 
the  common  version  that  favors  any  sectarian 
view  or  usage.     They  cannot  do  this.     And  yet 


IMMERSIONISTS    AGAINST    THE    BIBLE.     201 

they  are  endeavoring  to  make  use  of  the  fact  of 
the  collation  of  the  Scriptures  by  the  American 
Bible  Society  as  excuse  for  them  in  what  thej^  arc 
doing.  They  are  very  much  concerned  to  get  a 
cloak  to  cover  their  misdoing.  They  cannot  get 
the  American  Bible  Society  to  help  bear  the  fear- 
ful responsibility  they  have  incurred.  They  will 
be  constrained  to  meet  it  unaided.  The  old 
adage  that  "a  drowning  man  will  catch  at  a, 
straw/'  is  very  forcibly  illustrated  in  the  manner 
in  which  this  movement  is  advocated.  Its  friends 
seem  to  doubt  its  intrinsic  merits,  and,  therefore, 
the  fallacious  use  of  the  arginnentum  ad  homi- 
nem.  A  specimen  of  this  sophism  has  already 
been  noticed  in  this  chapter.  Before  we  close  it, 
we  will  notice  another  specimen. 

It  is  stated  that  all  the  principal  Pedobaptist 
denominations  have  had  their  denomiuatioual 
versions  of  the  Holy  Scriptures  :  that  Doddridge, 
Macknight,  and  George  Campbell,  have  made 
translations  for  the  Presbyterians  :  that  Wesley 
has  made  a  translation  for  the  Methodists,  etc. 

Now,  we    admit    that  Poddridge,   Macknight. 


202    IMMERSIONISTS    AGAINST    THE    EIBLE. 

Wesley,  and  other  learned  men,  have  made  trans- 
lations of  the  Holy  Scriptures.  But  did  they 
design  that  they  should  be  recognized  as  the 
standards  of  the  denominations  to  which  they 
belonged  ?  Did  they  ever  intimate  any  such 
thing  at  any  time  ?  Did  the  denominations  to 
which  these  men  belonged  think  of  receiving 
their  versions  in  the  place  of  the  common 
version  ? 

These  men  made  their  translations  as  indivi- 
duals. In  making  them,  they  were  not  considered 
by  themselves,  nor  their  denominations,  nor  the 
world,  as  doing  their  work,  however  praiseworthy 
it  might  be  in  itself,  at  the  bidding  or  request  of 
the  Churches  to  which  they  belonged.  Where  is 
there  in  Mr.  Wesley's  translation,  for  instance, 
any  thing  indicating  that  he  expected  or  desired 
that  it  should  displace  the  common  version  ?  At 
what  time  and  at  what  place  did  the  Methodists, 
in  any  form  or  manner,  intimate  that  they 
desired  to  displace  the  translation  of  King  James 
with  Mr.  Wesley's  ? 

It  is  true  that  both  the  preachers  and  people 


IMMERSIOXISTS   AGAINST    THE    BIBLE.     203 

liave  read  Mr.  AYesley's  traDsIation  of  tlie  Xew 
Testament,  as  they  have  read  his  Xotes,  Sermons, 
etc.,  simply  as  the  production  of  a  learned  and 
good  man.  But  they  have  never  recognized  him, 
nor  do  they  recognize  him  as  a  standard  transla- 
tor. The  same  remarks  are  applicable  to  the 
translations  of  other  learned  Pedobaptist  authors. 
But  admitting,  for  the  sake  of  argument,  that 
these  versions  are  the  standards  of  the  denomina- 
tions with  which  their  authors  were  identified, 
they  were  not  designed  merely  to  subserve  the 
interests  of  their  denominational  theories  and 
practice.  As  far  as  the  versions  of  Doddridge 
and  Macknight  are  concerned,  they  are,  in  some 
respects,  decidedly  unfavorable  to  Presbyterian 
practice. 

In  Wesley's  version,  in  what  single  instance  is 
there  a  variation  from  the  common  version  favor- 
ing the  peculiar  theory  and  usages  of  the  author 
and  his  sect  ? 

But  we  have  proved  that  a  distinctive  feature 
in  the  version  the  immersionists  are  seeking,  is 
the  substitution  of  immerse  for  baptize,  so  that 


204     IMMERSIONISTS    AGAINST    THE    BIBLE. 

their  peculiar  usage  may  have  the  authority  of 
Scripture,  though  it  may  be  Baptist  Scripture 
after  all. 

If  these  revisionists  had  adduced  the  case  of 
the  Papists,  Swedenborgians,  Unitarians,  Uni- 
versalists,  Destructionists,  etc.,  as  having  secured 
versions  to  sustain  their  peculiar  theories,  the 
cases  would  have  been  much  more  apposite.  The 
Bible  of  the  Papists  has  penance  instead  of 
repentance ;  and  so  of  the  others.  The  Baptist 
Bible  will  have  no  baptism  in  it,  but  immerse 
instead  of  it. 

Our  new  version  friends  have  ^^ precedent'' 
truly  for  revision.  In  this  age  of  improvement, 
when  a  fanatical  sect  cannot  prove  their  ultraisms 
from  the  common  version,  they  at  once  put  it  on 
the  rack,  and  constrain  it  to  testify  in  their  favor. 
The  Baptists  and  Campbellites  are  endeavoring 
to  keep  up  with  the  times.  They  will  not  be 
fully  up,  however,  till  they  get  a  new  Bible  entire 
from  heaven,  or  some  other  source,  like  the 
Mormons. 

Conybeare  and  Howson,  in  their  late  learned 


IMMERSIOXISTS    AGAINST    THE    BIBLE.     205 

and  able  work,  "  The  Life  and  Epistles  of  St. 
Paul,"  have  been  quoted  as  translators  in  favor 
of  revision. 

But  to  show  the  utter  recklessness  of  the  ad- 
vocates of  this  movement,  I  quote  from  vol.  i.,  p. 
18,  Introd.  They  give  in  the  introduction  the 
reasons  of  their  making  a  translation  of  Paul's 
epistles.  It  was  not  on  account  of  any  low 
opinion  of  the  common  version.  For  they  say,  as 
if  they  had  in  mind  the  temerity  of  our  revision- 
ists in  publishing  their  version,  as  they  are  doing, 
alonorside  the  common  version  :  It  is  "a  rash  ex- 

o 

periment  to  provoke  such  a  contrast  between  the 
matchless  style  of  the  authorized  version  and  that 
of  the  modern  translator^  thus  placed  side  by 
side." 

They  justify  their  translation  solely  on  the 
ground  that  they  had  a  special  object  in  view, 
which  could  only  be  accomplished  by  a  para- 
phrase ;  and  it  is  evident  that  they  rest  much  of 
the  ralue  of  their  work  upon  their  paraphrastic 
skill,  which  is,  they  admit,  rather  the  merit  of 
the  commentator  than  of  the  translator.  They 
18 


206      IMMERSIONISTS    AGAINST    THE    BIBLE. 

evidently  intend  to  convey  the  idea  that  the 
authorized  version  is  to  be  held  in  estimation  for 
its  great  faithfulness  to  the  original  as  it  is^  and 
not  as  sectarians  would  suppose  it  should  be. 

Hence  they  sa^^,  ''  If  the  text  admit  of  two 
interpretations,  our  version  (the  common)  endea- 
vors, if  possible,  to  preserve  the  same  ambiguity, 
and  effects  this  often  with  admirable  skill. ^'  This 
they  characterize  as  '^a  merit  in  an  authorized 
version." 

The  design  of  the  authorized  version  is,  they 
say,  to  make  "  a  standard  of  authority,  and  ulti- 
mate appeal  in  controversy."  This  they  give  as 
the  reason  of  its  great  faithfulness  to  the  original. 
This  fidelity,  they  admit,  is  the  occasion  of  diffi- 
culties; but  they  add,  "Had  any  other  course 
been  adopted,  every  sect  would  have  had  its  own 
Bible  :  as  it  is,  this  one  translation  has  been  all 
but  unanimously  received  for  three  centuries  :" 
(two  and  a  half  they  should  have  said.) 

The  general  conclusion  of  these  learned  men, 
in  their  apology  for  a  new  version  of  Paul's 
epistles,  is,  that  the  authorized  version  is  iuimi- 


IMMERSIONISTS    AGAINST    THE    BIBLE.     207 

table  and  unapproachable  as  a  standard,  and  that 
new  versions  or  translations  should  only  have  in 
view  a  special  purpose,  which,  of  course,  is  to  be 
jTrdged  of  by  circumstances  :  should  always  be 
avowed  unambiguously ;  and  should  be  permitted 
to  pass  the  ordeal  of  public  opinion.  They  avow 
the  purpose  of  their  work  to  be  "  to  give  a  living 
picture  of  the  Apostle  Paul  himself,  and  the  cir- 
cumstances by  which  he  was  surrounded."  The 
work  is  a  biography  of  the  apostle.  3Iuch  that 
is  peculiar  to  him  is  contained  in  his  epistles. 
A  new  version  is  resorted  to  for  the  purpose  of 
catching  what  the  versionist  supposes  to  be  the 
spirit  of  the  apostle. 


208      IMMERSIONISTS    AGAINST    THE    BIBLE. 


CHAPTER    X. 

CHANGES   PROPOSED    IN    THE    COMMON   VERSION. 

I  HAVE  already  demonstrated  that  tlie  maiu  de- 
sign of  tliis  movement  is  to  substitute  immerse 
for  baptize ;  yet  as  a  great  many  changes  have 
been  proposed,  though  merely  to  gain  favor  for 
the  substitution  of  immerse,  it  may  be  proper  to 
notice  some  of  them.  Let  it  be  borne  in  mind 
that  we  have  never  denied  that  the  common  ver- 
sion has  defects.  This  has  all  along  been  ad- 
mitted. And  this  is  true  of  all  the  versions  that 
have  ever  been  made ;  and  it  will  be  true  of  any 
that  may  yet  be  made.  In  the  ninguage  of  the 
Rev.  Mr.  Hodge,  a  Baptist  minister  of  Brooklyn, 
N.  Y.,  "A  man  who  could  remove  every  fault,  and 
produce  a  perfect  translation,  would  be  able  to 
kindle  a  comet  and  send  it  blazing  through  the 
heavens.'^     And  were  the  position  assumed  nnd 


IMMERSIONISTS   AGAI.aST    THE   BIBLE.      200 

acted  upon,  tliat  no  translation  that  is  not  perfect, 
and  especially  that  all  evangelical  Christians 
would  regard  as  perfect,  should  be  patronized,  we 
should  be  constrained  to  let  the  revelation  of  God 
remain  in  the  original  tongues,  or  cease  the  work 
of  Bible  distribution  altogether.  Says  Dr.  Yfil- 
liams,  who,  though  a  Baptist,  is  opposed  to  this 
movement :  '^  No  man  will  claim  for  the  English 
Scriptures  perfection.  A  perfect  version  is  a 
nonentity,  and  we  believe  an  impossibility,  whilst 
imperfect  and  uninspired  translators'  are  the  only 
agents  to  furnish  it,  and  a  living  language,  ever 
changing  from  the  very  fact  of  its  life,  remains 
the  only  material  on  which  such  translators  are  to 
work.  No  sober  man  can  expect  to  attain,  no 
modest  nor  thorough  scholar  would  venture  to 
promise,  a  version  that  approached  immaculate 
perfection. '' 

That  the  translation  sought  by  the  advocates  of 
this  movement  will  not  be  ''  immaculate,'^  will 
appear  as  very  likely  from  a  slight  examination  of 
some  of  the  changes  from  the  common  version 
which  have  been  proposed.  It  will  appear  very 
IS* 


210     IMMEIISIONISTS    AGAINST    THE    BIBLE. 

evident  that  these  pious  Bible-menders  are  sadly 
under  the  deluding  influence  of  a  spirit  of  extra- 
vagant hypercriticism. 

Much  stress  is  laid  on  what  they  call  ohsolete 
terms.  ^^  Let,'^  as  used  in  Kom.  i.  13,  and  2 
Thess.  ii.  7,  etc.,  it  is  said  ^^  contradicts  the  sense. ^' 
But  no  intelligent  reader  will  be  in  danger  of  mis- 
understanding the  term.  No  one,  not  even  a  Sab- 
bath-school scholar  of  ten  years  of  age,  will  be  in 
any  dangar  of  construing  it  as  meaning  "  permit" 
or  "  allow.''  The  very  connection  determines  the 
sense.  Who  misunderstands  the  familiar  phrase, 
'^without  let  or  hindrance?"  '^And  the  time 
will  never  arrive  when  the  reader  of  God's  word 
will  not  have  occasion  to  exercise  his  discrimina- 
tion ]  or  when  its  language  will  not  need  to  be 
illustrated  and  explained."  The  phrase  ''  bid  him 
Grod  speed,"  2  John  10,  is  pronounced  ^^ pro- 
fane'' hy  these  holi/  critics.  But  who  but  they 
can  see  any  profanity  in  the  use  of  the  phrase,  as 
a  benediction  on  one  supposed  to  be  in  a  right 
course  of  action  ? 

The  phrase  "  God  forbid,"  as  a  form  of  empha- 


IRITHERSIONISTS   AGAINST    THE    BIBLE.      211 

tic  denial,  is  pronounced  "an  irreverent  oath." 
And  they  suggest  the  translation  of  Gal.  vi.  14, 
as  follows  :  ^^May  it  not  he  that  I  should  glory,"' 
etc.  Dr.  Williams,  of  New  York,  who,  perhaps, 
has  no  superior  in  this  country  in  his  knowledge 
of  English  literature,  shows  most  conclusively 
that  there  is  no  ground  for  this  harsh  criticism. 
He  shows  that  the  phrase  itself  is  preserved  in  the 
original  Hebrew,  in  the  case  of  the  good  Naboth 
refusing  to  sell  the  inheritance  of  his  fathers  to 
Ahab,  (1  Kings,  xxi.  3,)  and  on  three  other  oc- 
casions, as  used  by  David,  when  that  magnani- 
mous saint  forbore  to  take  the  life  of  Saul,  and 
once  when  he  poured  out,  as  a  drink  offering,  the 
water  that  had  been  procured  at  the  well  of  Beth- 
lehem at  the  risk  of  his  warriors'  lives.  (1  Sam. 
xxiv.  6,  xxvi.  11;  and  1  Chrou.  xi.  19.) 

It  is  argued  that  the  original  Greek  phrase, 
\ir\  yevoLTO,  one  genoito,  "has  not  in  it  the  idea 
of  God ;"  and  that  "  by  no  means,"  or  "  be  it  not," 
would  be  preferable  to  the  introduction  of  the 
name  of  God  "  without  an}^  authority  from  Scrip- 
ture."    But  in  the  sacred  text  itself,  acco:dino; 


212      IMMERSIONISTS    AGAINST    THE   BIBLE. 

to  Dr.  Williams^  the  word  for  the  Divine  Being 
occurs  in  the  four  passages  in  the  Hebrew  to  which 
we  have  referred.  And  so,  consequently,  we  have 
''scriptural  authority'^  for  this  form  of  expres- 
sion as  translated  in  the  common  version. 

The  phrases  suggested  are  utterly  too  tame  to 
express  "the  strong  and  indignant  disclaimer  and 
the  impetuous  dislike  the  original  phrase  conveys." 
Our  word  "never"  would  better  express  ''its  pas- 
sionate and  impulsive  negative."  But  this  im- 
plies rather  a  reliance  on  our  own  strength  to  avert 
an  impending  evil ;  while  the  Greek  phrase  is 
rather  an  appeal  to  a  higher  and  overruling  might 
to  avert  the  danger  or  the  sin.  Tholuck,  on  the 
Piomans,  calls  it  "  the  strongest  form  of  negation," 
and  gives  the  Hebrew  term  "  clialilali'  as  its 
equivalent.  The  phrases  proposed  to  be  substi- 
tuted for  "God  forbid"  all  necessarily  refer  the 
mind  to  a  superior  power,  as  well  as  this  phrase. 
If  they  are  not  thus  construed,  they  have  no 
sense  nor  force  in  them  ;  and  they  are  conse- 
quently subject  to  the  same  objection.  And  if 
they  do  not  refer  to  the  true  God,  as  the  Supreme 


IMMERSIOXISTS   AGAINST    THE   BIBLE.     213 

in  authority  and  power,  to  wliom  do  they  refer  ? 
Do  the  advocates  of  the  new  version  intend  to 
establish  the  recognition  of  any  other  god  as 
supreme?  I  think  this  will  be  equally  as  '■^ir- 
reverent'' as  the  assumed  use  of  God's  name 
"  without  any  scriptural  authority." 

The  phrase  "  Holy  Ghost/'  as  an  appellation 
of  the  third  person  of  the  Holy  Trinity,  is  ob- 
jected to,  as  expressing  only  the  idea  of  an  appa- 
rition, and  as  being  ^^  manifest  hlasphemy." 

Dr.  Williams  shows,  in  reply  to  this  charge, 
"that  the  parent  Anglo-Saxon  had  the  term  not 
only  in  the  sense  of  phantom,  but  also  in  the 
general,  reverent  idea  of  '  sjjirif.'  The  German, 
with  which  our  people  and  literature  are  daily 
growing  of  closer  kin  and  fuller  acquaintance, 
has  essentially  the  same  word,  in  the  large  and 
innocuous  sense.  And  the  classics  of  the  lan- 
guage— not  to  be  extruded  by  our  sweeping 
criticisms  from  the  libraries  and  schools  of  the 
English  race — Dryden,  whose  prose  Fox  took  as 
the  very  standard  of  pure  English,  and  Shak- 
speare,  and  the  great  Hooker,  and  the  English 


214      IMMERSIONISTS    AGAINST    THE    BIBLE. 

Common  Prayer,  all  have  the  word  ^ghostly'  in 
the  signification  of  spiritual  and  religious.  To 
divide  the  appellation  from  the  terra  '  Holy/ 
indissolubly  employed  with  it,  in  our  hymns  and 
prayers  and  best  religious  writers,  is  neither  fair 
criticism,  nor  duly  reverent  to  the  theme  and 
Being.  And  would  the  brethren  who  adopt  this 
line  of  argviment,  receive  it,  if  their  fellow-dis- 
ciples, who  see  and  feel  no  such  unhappy  associa- 
tions with  this  term  that  is  sacred  to  their  hearts 
from  their  earliest  and  holiest  recollections  of  it, 
should  ask  the  brethren  to  carry  out  the  same 
principle  in  its  bearings  on  the  other  Name  which 
the  translators  use  for  the  Paraclete  ?  Every 
one  at  all  conversant  with  the  familiar  and  lighter 
literature  of  our  tongue,  knows  that,  from  the 
first  Quakers  down  to  our  own  time,  superficial 
and  reckless  writers  have  delighted  to  confound 
the  dread  name  of  the  third  person  in  the  God- 
head with  the  liquid  and  disguised  death  that 
brims  the  wine-cup  and  enriches  the  dram-seller. 
The  lighter  literature  of  England  absolutely 
reeks  with  irreverent  allusions  of  this  kind,  re- 


IMMERSIONISTS    AGAINST    THE    BIBLE.      215 

calling  tlie  blasphemy  which  the  enemies  of  the 
apostles  employed  on  the  clay  of  Pentecost,  when 
they  attributed  the  influences  of  the  descended 
^Spirit'  to  'new  icine.'  "Would  not  the  bre- 
thren ....  be  generally  and  justly  wounded, 
if,  because  of  those  irreverent  expressions,  we 
should  strive  to  denounce  the  expression  itself, 
and  employ  of  it  strong  expressions  parallel  to 
those  used  ....  against  the  other  Name — ex- 
pressions only  serving  to  nail  on  the  writhing  me- 
mory of  the  pious,  profane  associations  with  holy 
things — associations  they  would  deplore  and  de- 
test, and  strive  earnestly  and  prayerfully  to  forget 
for  ever  ?  We  know  well  the  brethren  .  .  .  vrould 
shrink  from  laying  a  hand  like  Uzzah's,  rash  even 
in  its  honest  endeavors  to  stay  the  ark,  upon  the 
cause  they  love.'' 

Webster  defines  the  phrase  "  Holy  Ghost '^ — 
''The  third  person  in  the  adorable  Trinity." 

But  is  not  the  phrase  "  Holy  Spirit"  obnoxious 
to  the  ver}"  same  objection  which  they  urge 
against  "  Holy  Ghost  ?"  Is  not  the  term  "sjn'ri//' 
with    which    they    propose     translating    TTVEvua. 


216      IMMERSIONISTS   AGAINST    THE    BIBLE. 

2Dneuma,Vised  to  sigaify  an  apparition — -a  ghost? 
So  says  Webster;  and  "upon  their  own  principle, 
the  use  of  the  term  '' sjjirit,"  as  an  appellative 
of  the  third  person  in  the  Trinity,  "  is  manifest 
blasphemy."  It  is  a  matter  of  some  interest  to 
know  what  term  they  will  secure. 

The  substitution  of  "  Teacher''  for  "  Master" 
is  urged  as  "demanded"  by  fidelity  to  the  truth, 
in  John  xiii.  13,  14:  Matt.  xvii.  24,  ix.  11,  x. 
24  :  Luke  vi.  40,  etc. 

But  the  slightest  examination  of  the  subject 
will  convince  any  one  that  the  full  force  of  the 
original  AiSdoicaXog,  Vidaskalos,  is  not  contained 
in  the  word  "teacher;"  for  the  word  implies 
not  only  one  who  communicates  knowledge,  but, 
in  its  application  to  Christ,  it  implies  also  author- 
ity as  a  teacher. 

Webster,  in  defining  "  teacher,"  does  not  give 
one  acceptation  as  involving  the  idea  of  author 
ity  or  government;  but  in  defining  "master," 
he  not  only  gives  it  as  containing  the  idea  of 
governing,  but  also  as  involving  the  idea  of 
instructing.    This,  then,  is  the  term  which  ought 


TMMERSIONISTS    AGAIXST    THE    BIBLE.      217 

to  be  used,  in  order  to  express  the  full  intent 
of  the  original  word.  And  just  let  the  reader 
test  the  proposed  change,  by  substituting  the 
word  "Teacher'^  for  '^Master/'  in  the  passages 
above  referred  to,  and  he  will  see  that  the  import 
is  perfectly  tame  and  insufficient. 

^'Make  to  stumble,"  for  "offend,"  is  proposed 
as  a  translation  of  aKavdaXt^cj,  shandalizo.  If 
the  rendering  of  the  common  version  be  obscure, 
as  alleged,  how  much  less  obscure  is  this  ?  Let 
the  reader  test  it  by  reading  a  few  passages  with 
this  change,  viz. :  "  Doth  this  make  you  stumhle?''' 
instead  of,  "  Doth  this  offend  you  ?''  "All  ye 
shall  he  made  to  stumble  this  night,"  instead  of, 
"All  ye  shall  be  offended,"  etc.  "If  thy  right 
hand  inake  thee  stumble/'  etc.,  instead  of,  "  If  thy 
right  hand  offend  thee,"'  etc. 

It  will  be  observed  that  this  proposed  change  is 
perfectly  reckless  of  th^  fact  that  the  original 
word  in  these  instances,  as  in  the  common  version, 
is  "not  used  in  a  literal,  but  in  2i  figurative  sense; 
and,  therefore,  by  giving  a  literal  sense  in  the 
translation,  they  pervert  the  meaning  of  the 
19 


218     IMilERSIONISTS    AGAINST   tHE   BIBLE. 

Saviour  and  tlie  apostles,  and  make  them  speak 
nonsense. 

In  Acts  xvii.  22,  ^'  very  religious"  is  proposed 
to  be  substituted  for  '^  too  superstitious;"  and  the 
passage  would  then  read  :  ''  I  perceive  that  in  all 
things  ye  are  very  religious." 

The  term  in  the  original  is  a  very  different  one 
from  that  used  in  James  i.  26.  In  James,  it 
is  '&prjaiiog,  threskos.  In  this  passage  it  is 
dELOLSaLfiojv,  deisidaimon.  In  James,  the  term 
threskos  means  religious,  devout,  pious.  In  this 
passage,  the  term  deisidaimon  is  a  compound  of 
deidoj,  deido,  to  fear,  and  6alfio)v,  daimon,  which 
in  the  New  Testament  usually  signifies  the  Devil 
or  an  evil  spirit;  and  in  1  Cor.  x.  20,  21,  it 
designates  the  heathen  divinities — invisible  ob- 
jects of  idolatrous  worship. 

We  are  constrained  to  conclude,  therefore,  that 
the  translation  proposed  is  unjustifiable.  If  the 
apostle  had  intended  to  express  the  idea  of  the 
Athenians  being  very  religious  in  a  good  sense*  it 
is  strange  he  should  not  have  used  the  same  word 
which  James  uses,  or  one  of  the  same  import. 


IMMERSIONISTS  AGAINST    THE    BIBLE.     219 

But  wlio  can  think  that  the  inspired  apostle  of 
the  Gentiles  should  have  adopted  the  expedient 
of  bestowing  a  compliment  on  the  idolatrous 
Athenians,  for  the  purpose  of  avoiding  the  ex- 
citement of  their  prejudices  against  his  mission  ? 
The  translation  of  the  common  version  is  then  a 
good  one,  and  the  one  proposed  is  a  false  one,  if 
we  are  to  be  guided  by  the  scriptural  usage  of  the 
original  term. 

It  is  proposed  to  substitute  ^^  sound  of  the 
voice"  for  "voice,"  in  Acts  ix.  7.  The  passage 
would  then  read  :  "  The  men  who  journeyed  with 
him  stood  speechless,  hearing  ^7ie  sound  o/ the 
voice." 

In  reference  to  this  change,  I  quote  from  a 
pamphlet  containing  a  very  able  review  of  the 
New  Version  movetnent,  by  a  committee  appointed 
by  a  meeting  of  Baptists  of  the  city  of  New  York, 
opposed  to  the  movement.  This  able  document 
is  signed  by  Drs.  Welch,  Dowling,  and  three 
others. 

They  use  the  following. language,  (pp.  30,  31 :) 
"  The  oTound  on  which  this  alteration  is  defended 


220     IMMERSIONISTS    AGAINST    THE    BIBLE. 

is  the  use  of  the  genitive  case,  instead  of  the  ac- 
cusative, in  the  original  text.  It  cannot,  how- 
ever, have  escaped  the  notice  of  an  attentive 
reader  of  the  G-reek  Testament,  that,  as  respects 
the  usage  of  the  sacred  loiHters,  (to  extend  the 
investigation  no  farther,)  there  is  not  the  slightest 
indication  of  any  diflFerence  in  the  force  of  the 
two  forms  of  expression.  They  are,  throughout 
the  Neiv  Testament,  used  interchangeahly ,  and  in 
all  respects  in  such  manner  as  to  place  it  beyond 
all  doubt  that  they  were  regarded  as  being  entirely 
synonymous. 

"  The  apostle,  in  the  statement,  recorded  Acts 
xxii.  7,  and  xxvi.  14,  ^'And  I  heard  a  voice  say- 
ing unto  me,  Saul,  Saui,  why  persecutest  thou 
me?"  uses  in  one  case  the  genitive,  and  in  the 
other  the  accusative.  • 

"Again,  the  Apostle  John,  in  the  phrase,  ^And 
I  heard  a  great  voice  saying,'  occurring  Rev.  i. 
10,  xvi.  1,  xix.  1,  xxi.  3,  employs  in  two  in- 
stances the  genitive ;  in  the  other  two,  the  accu- 
sative. Again,  in  E,ev.  x.  4,  and  xiv.  13,  'And 
I  heard  a  voice  from  heaven  saying  unto  me,'  the 


IMMERSIONISTS    AGAINST   THE    BIBLE.     221 

genitive  is  used  in  tlie  former  passage ;  the  accu- 
sative in  the  latter.  And  as  in  all  these  instances 
the  very  words  which  were  spoken  are  recorded 
as  having  been  heard  and  understood,  it  would  be 
folly  to  say  that  the  reference  in  the  one  case  is 
simply  and  specifically  to  the  sound  of  the  voice, 
and  in  the  other  to  the  voice  itself.  To  these 
may  be  added  the  passage,  Heb.  iii.  15 :  '  To- 
day if  ye  will  hear  his  voice,  (genitive,)  harden 
not  your  hearts;'  as  also  John  xviii.  87  :  '  Every 
one  that  is  of  the  truth  htarcth  my  voice ;'  lan- 
guage which,  so  far  from  being  adapted  to  ex- 
press or  even  to  suggest  any  idea  such  as  our 
brethren  seek  to  attach  to  it,  most  obviously  re- 
fers iQ  the  ^  voice,'  not  simply  as  understood,  but 
oheyed.  See  also  John  v.  25,  x.  16,  27  :  2  Tim. 
i.  13  :  Rev.  iii.  20,  etc. 

^'  These  facts  must  suffice  to  satisfy  every  mind 
that  the  distinction  which  our  brethren  imagine 
they  perceive  in  the  phraseology  under  consider- 
ation has  not  the  slightest  foundation  in  the  usage 
of  the  Xew  Testament  writers.  And  we  cannot 
but  regard  the  introduction  of  the  words,  'the 
19* 


222     IMMERSIONISTS    AGAINST    THE   BIBLE. 

sound  of/  into  Acts  ix.  7,  as  being,  in  the  view 
of  this  usage,  not  an  '  amendment,'  or  improve- 
ment in  the  translation,  but  an  unwarranted 
^  addition'  to  the  sacred  text.  No  one,  however 
respectable  may  be  his  attainments  in  classic 
Greek,  can  be  justified  in  undertaking  the  work 
of  translating  the  New  Testament,  without  first 
becoming  thoroughly  acquainted  with  the  scrip- 
tural usage;  and  the  usage,  too,  which  in  each 
case  may  serve  to  illustrate  the  import  of  the  par- 
ticular passage  to  be  translated.  Far  less  are  the 
sweeping  denunciations  of  the  received  transla- 
tion, as  being  '  j)alpably'  erroneous,  in  which  our 
brethren  have  so  freely  indulged,  to  be  excused, 
when,  as  in  the  present  case,  a  little  examination 
is  sufficient  to  place  it  beyond  all  dispute,  that 
the  'erroneousness'  in  reality  and  manifestly  per- 
tains to  what  is  ofi"ered  as  a  '  correction '  or 
^  amendment.' 

"  With  regard  to  the  import  of  Acts  ix.  7,  we 
see  no  occasion  for  setting  aside  the  idea  naturally 
suggested  to  the  mind  by  the  received  translation ; 
especially  when   it   is    considered   that  there  is 


IMMERSIONISTS    AGAINST    THE   BIBLE.     223 

nothing  in  the  passage  to  indicate  that  the  men 
in  company  with  Saul  understood  the  import  of 
what  was  uttered,  (comp.  chap.  xvi.  14,)  or  to 
icliom,  or  hy  loliom  it  was  spoken. '' 

"In  prison/'  is  proposed  for  "in  hold" — Acts 
iv.  3 ;  and  the  passage  would  then  read  :  "And 
they  laid  hands  on  them  and  put  them  in  prison 
unto  the  next  day."  The  original  word,  r'jpTjOig, 
teresis,  (from  rrjpeo),  tereo,  to  have  an  eye  to,  to 
watch,  to  keep,  to  guard,)  is  defined  by  Robinson 
as  to  its  use  in  the  New  Testament :  1.  A  watch- 
ing, keeping — 3.  guard,  watch;  in  New  Testa- 
ment, meton., place  of  icard,  prison  :  Greenfield, 
a  keeping,  custody,  i.  e.,  hy  meton.,  a  place  where 
one  is  confined,  prison,  hold,  ward. 

It  will  be  observed,  then,  that  whenever  this 
term  is  used  to  signify  prison,  or  place  of  cus- 
tody, it  is  so  used  by  metonymy.  Its  proper 
meaning  is  safe  keeping,  custody  ;  and  this  sense 
is  certainly  very  suitable  for  Acts  iv.  3.  No  im- 
provement can  be  realized  by  substituting  the 
figurative  for  the  primary,  literal  sense  of  the 


224    IMMERSIONISTS    AGAINST    THE   BIBLE. 

term.  And  the  perspicuity  of  the  passage  does 
not  require  it. 

"Faithless"  is  proposed  to  be  substituted  "for 
believe  not/'  in  2  Tim.  ii.  13:  "If  we  helieve 
not,  yet  he  abideth  faithful :  he  cannot  deny  him- 
self;" which,  when  improved,  will  read  :  "  If  we 
he  faithless,  he  abideth  faithful/'  etc. 

On  this,  Messrs.  Welch,  Dowling,  etc.,  re- 
mark :  "  The  idea  expressed  by  the  passage,  as 
it  stands  in  our  present  version,  is  one  of  peculiar 
interest  and  force,  to  wit :  our  unbelief  or  incre- 
dulity respecting  the  Divine  declarations  cannot 
do  away  with  the  certainty  of  their  fulfilment. 
His  revealed  purposes,  whether  reg'arded  or  dis- 
regarded, will,  without  the  possibility  of  a  failure, 
be  executed:  to  distrust  his  word,  although  it 
may  awaken  a  temporary  feeling  of  security,  will 
be  unavailing  in  the  end,  inasmuch  as  he  is  faith- 
ful to  his  word  :  he  cannot  deny  himself.  The 
substitution  of  the  word  faithless,  however,  in 
the  sense yir^se  to  one's  trust  and  j^t'ofession — the 
sense  evidently  intended,  as  furnishing  the  only 


IMMERSIONISTS    AGAINST    THE    BIBLE.     225 

grouDcl  on  which  a  change  in  the  translation  could 
be  supposed  to  be  necessary — entirely  changes 
the  import  and  bearing  of  the  passage,  and  leaves 
us  with  a  sense  which  will,  we  believe,  b€f  gene- 
rally regarded  as  being,  'in  comparison  with  the 
one  which  we  have  indicated,  tame  and  frigid. 
Indeed,  it  is  not  a  little  difficult  to  perceive  what 
relation  our  unfaithfulness  sustains  to  the  faitli- 
fulness  of  God.  What,  then,  is  the  ground  on 
which  the  substitution  is  made  ? 

"It  will  doubtless  excite  the  surprise  of  those 
not  acquainted  with  the  original  text,  to  learn  that 
the  sense  presented  in  this  so-called  ^  amend- 
ment,' which  is  at  variance  with  what  seems  to  be 
required  by  the  scope  and  design  of  the  passage, 
so  far  from  being  ^demanded,'  or  even  suggested 
by  the  established  import  of  the  original  term,  is 
secured  only  by  the  actual  rejection  of  its  uniform 
meaning,  as  occurring  in  other  passages  in  the 
New  Testament.  The  compound  word  ajnsteo 
is  always  used  by  the  sacred  writers  in  the 
sense  'believe  not;'  as,  for  example,  in  Acts 
xxviii.  24  :  'And  some  believed  the  thinos  which 


226    IMMERSIONISTS    AGAINST    THE    BIBLE. 

were  spoken,  and  some  helieved  not.'  Mark  xvi. 
16 :  '  He  that  helievetli  not  sliall  be  damned.' 
Luke  xxiv.  41  :  'While  thej  helieved  not  for  joy.' 
Kom,  iii.  3  :  '  "What  if  some  did  not  helieve,' 
etc.  The  noun  apistia  is  likewise  generally  used 
in  the  same  characteristic  import;  as  in  Rom.  iv. 
20:  'He  staggered  not  at  the  promise  of  God 
through  unbelief. ^  See  also  Mark  vi.  6  :  Matt, 
xiii.  58,  xvii.  20 :  Rom.  xi.  20,  etc.  And  even 
the  adjective  form,  aj)istos,  is  usually  employed 
in  the  New  Testament,  not  in  the  sense  faith- 
less or  unfaithful,  as  contrasted  with  ftiithful, 
but  as  meaning  unbelieving,  luithout  faith. 
See  1  Cor.  vii.  14:  'The  unbelieving  husband;' 
X.  27 ;  xiv.  22,  23,  etc.  And  yet,  in  opposition 
to  the  evidence  afforded  by  these  facts,  as  well  as 
in  opposition  to  what  tve  regard  as  the  exigencies 
of  the  passage  itself,  the  sense  '  believe  not '  is 
expunged  from  2  Tim.  ii.  13,  and  one  which  is 
favored  by  no  parallel  passage  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment is  introduced  in  its  stead ;  and  all  this,  we 
are  left  to  infer,  as  the  correction  of  a  'gross' 
and  'palpable'  error." 


IMMERSIONISTS   AGAINST    THE   BIBLE.      227 

Errors  in  grammar,  of  fearful  enormity, 
have  been  charged  upon  the  common  version. 
The  first  class  of  these  sins  against  Priscian  in- 
cludes the  use  of  "be"  for  "are."  Says  Dr. 
"Williams  :  "  Now,  to  put  this  ancient  form  of  ex- 
pression, common  to  some  of  the  best  of  the  elder 
classics  of  the  language,  under  the  caption  of 
^  grammatical  errors,'  argues  great  heedlessness 
or  temerity."  He  then  quotes  Lord  Bacon  as 
usiag  it,  as  follows  :  "  Certainly  there  he  that 
delight  in  giddiness." 

A  second  class  of  sins  against  the  laws  of 
grammar,  includes  the  use  of  ''which"  for 
"who."  But  Lord  Bacon  is  again  cited.  He 
uses  the  following,  as  quoted  by  Dr.  Williams  : 
''The  apostles  and  disciples  ichich  saw  our  Sa- 
viour in  the  flesh." 

The  use  of  the  preposition  "  for,"  before  the 
infinitive,  is  charged  as  "erroneous  and  clumsy;" 
but  Webster  says  that  "  the  use  is  correct,  though 
now  obsolete." 

These  are  but  specimens  of  the  changes  pro- 
posed ;  but  they  are  sufficient  to  show  that  the 


228     IMMERSIONISTS    AGAINST    THE    BIBLE. 

advocates  of  this  movement  are  pressed  for  an 
apology  to  justify  them  in  making  an  immersion- 
ist  Bible. 

And,  indeed,  men  who  can  make  the  charges 
they  have  made  against  the  common  version, 
prove  that  they  are  utterly  incompetent  to  act  in 
the  capacity  of  critics.  They  are  simply  mad 
upon  this  subject;  and  no  one  need  wonder  if 
they  should  finally  trample  the  holy  oracles  under 
their  feet,  like  the  Mormons  and  others;  and, 
abandoning  even  the  expedient  of  translating,  to 
secure  proof  of  their  peculiar  dogma,  should  seek 
for  proof  from  some  other  source  more  likely  to 
furnish  it. 

Their  case  reminds  me  of  the  advice  of  a 
Quaker  to  his  son,  when  he  first  set  out  in  the 
world  to  make  a  living.  '^  Son,"  said  he,  '^  make 
money — honestly,  if  thee  can — but  make  money." 
At  all  hazards  they  are  determined  to  make 
capital  for  ^^dip,  and  nothing  hut  dip ;  immerse^ 
and  nothing  hut  immerse." 


IMMERSIONISTS   AGAINST   THE  BIBLE.     229 


CHAPTER   XI. 

THE    PORTION    OF    THE   REVISION   PUBLISHED. 

In  a  former  chapter  I  have  referred  to  the 
portions  of  the  new  version  that  have  been  pub- 
lished and  sent  abroad.  The  only  portions  I  have 
had  an  opportunity  of  seeing  are  the  Second 
Epistle  of  Peter,  and  the  Book  of  Revelation  in- 
clusive, and  the  first  two  chapters  of  Matthew. 

The  design  of  publishing  these  portions  first 
in  order  is,  doubtless,  as  I  have  already  suggested, 
to  avoid  as  long  as  possible  coming  before  the 
world  with  their  cherished  idea  of  dijp  or  immerse 
in  the  place  of  haptize.  Consequently,  they  go 
no  farther  with  Matthew  than  the  second  chapter. 
If  they  had  embraced  the  third  chapter  of 
Matthew,  or  the  First  Epistle  of  Peter,  the  main 
design  of  the  movement  would  have  appeared  at 
20 


230     IMMERSIONISTS    AGAINST    THE   BIBLE. 

once.  Immerse  would  have  been  ''j)rinted — 
PRINTED  IN  THE  Bible/'  where  they  intend  to 
have  it  ultimately.  But  they  are  anxious  to  keep 
off  the  evil  day  as  long  as  they  can.  But  we 
think  it  will  be  proper  to  call  attention  to  what 
they  have  done  in  the  work  of  translation,  in 
order  to  see  if  they  have  acted  upon  the  principles 
which  they  have  so  often  announced  as  destined 
to  govern  them  in  the  work. 

1.  The  reader  will  recollect  that  one  chief  com- 
plaint against  the  common  version  is,  that  it  is 
obscure  on  account  of  "  the  Pojpisli  artifice  of 
transfer."  That  by  this  means  the  translators 
have  ^'■wrapped  up''  and  concealed  the  true 
meaning  of  God's  word  "  from  the  mass  of  the 
unlearned,^'  '^the  common  people/'  who  consti- 
tute the  majority.  And  the  professed  object  of 
this  movement  was  to  '^  take  off  the  Popish  cover- 
ing from  his  pure  word/'  and  "  disabuse  the 
public  mind,  led  astray  by  doctors  and  diction- 
aries," etc. 

The  reader,  no  doubt,  would  think  it  strange 
indeed  if  it  should    appear  after  all   that  "  the 


IMMERSIONISTS    AGAINST    THE   BIBLE.     231 

Popish  artifice''  has  been  adopted  by  these  ultra- 
honest  men,  who  have  had  such  a  sympathy  for 
"  the  mass  of  the  unlearned,' '  "  the  common 
peopled'  I  will  take  one  specimen  of  the  per- 
spicuousness  of  this  renowned  new  version,  from 
the  Book  of  Revelation,  vi.  6.  The  common 
version  reads  thus : 

''And  I  heard  a  voice  in  the  midst  of  the  four 
beasts  say,  A  measure  of  wheat  for  a  penny,  and 
three  measures  of  barley  for  a  penny;  and  sec 
thou  hurt  not  the  oil  and  the  wine." 

The  new  version  has  it : 

"And  I  heard  a  voice  in  the  midst  of  the  four 
living  creatures  saying,  A  choenix  of  wheat  for 
a  denarius,  and  three  choenixes  of  barley  for  a 
denarius." 

There,  now  !  is  not  that  plain  ?  "  The  com- 
mon people,"  "the  mass  of  the  unlearned," 
know  what  ^^ denarius"  is!  0  yes!  they  can 
find  out  what  it  means  by  consulting  Webster. 
And  those  of  them  who  cannot  afford  to  buy 
"Webster,  and  cannot  have  access  to  it,  must  take 
for  granted  that  the  faithful,  and   honest,  and 


232    IMMERSIONISTS    AGAINST    THE   BIBLE. 

learned  translator  knew,  and  that  it  is  right, 
whether  they  know  what  it  means  or  not !  But 
'^cJioenixF'  "choe?iix  !''  what  will  they  do  with 
that?  Could  the  unlearned  always  have  access 
to  Webster,  he  could  not  help  them  at  all  to  a 
knowledge  of  its  meaning.  Webster  is  confined 
to  a  definition  of  terms  already  in  use  in  the 
Englisli  language.  But  this  '^  clioenix^'  is  an  un- 
naturalized foreigner.  Its  meaning  can  only  be 
known  by  reference  to  a  Greek  Lexicon.  The 
word  in  the.  Greek  is  ;\;o2vi|^,  "  choinix.'^  All 
this  learned  translator  has  done  is  to  substitute  e 
in  English  for  iota  in  Greek.  Is  this  a  trans- 
lation or  a  transfer?  Is  this  making  the  word 
of  God  plain  to  ^^  the  common  people  f^ 

How  much  more  do  the  people  know  about 
^^ denarius"  than  '■^ penny ^^  or  about  '■^  clioenvx" 
than  ^'•measure?"  And  if  the  translators  de- 
signed to  make  the  thing  so  plain  as  to  obviate 
the  necessity  of  referring  to  commentaries  or  dic- 
tionaries, as  they  promised  to  do,  why  did  they 
not  substitute  '■Hlie  eighth  of  a  pech,  or  one 
quart,"  in  the  place  of  '■''  choenix"  and  ^^  seven 


IMMERSIONISTS   AGAINST    THE    BIBLE.     233 

pence  three  farthings,  or  fourteen  cents,''  in  tlie 
place  of  "  cZe?m;-i«s  .^" 

They  have  spoken  of  haptize  as  "  a  lizard 
craAvliug  from  a  papal  swamp/'  Well,  what  is 
"  choenix  ?"  It  must  be  a  crocodile  or  an  cdli- 
gator. 

But  let  us  have  another  specimen  of  perspicu- 
ity— of  taking  the  Popish  covering  from  God's 
pure  word.  It  is  found  in  Matthew  ii.  1-7,  16. 
In  all  these  verses,  "  magians"  is  put  in  the  place 
of  "  ivise  men." 

Here  we  have  another  instance  of  "  the  Popish 
artifice  of  transfer."  The  Greek  is  [idyoi, 
"  magoi."  A  slight  variation  of  the  origiual 
term  is  all  that  is  done  for  the  benefit  of  the 
illiterate  "common  people,'^  the  mass  of  the  un- 
learned. This  is  translation,  is  it  ?  Plain  !  per- 
spicuous ! 

If  some  of  the  common  people  knew  who  these 
learned  translators  are,  and  where  they  live,  they 
might  write,  or,  if  they  should  be  too  illiterate  to 
do  this,  they  might  get  one  to  write  for  them,  and 
ask  them  to  state  what  '' choenix,"  ^'denarius" 
20* 


234    IMMERSIONISTS    AGAINST    THE   BIBLE. 

and  ''  magians/'  mean.  But  "  their  names  may 
not  come  abroad.''  It  would  "subject  them  to 
relentless  persecution/'  and  seriously  annoy  them 
in  their  great  and  learned  work.  So  they  must 
be  content,  and  wait  for  the  oracle  at  New  York 
(the  Board  of  Managers  of  the  American  Bible 
Union)  to  speak  out  again. 

In  a  further  notice  of  the  new  version  that  has 
appeared,  I  will  call  the  attention  of  the  reader 
to  one  of  the  rules  which  was  to  govern  the 
translators  in  their  work,  and  see  if  in  the  portion 
of  it  already  done  this  rule  has  b(ien  observed. 
Here  is  the  rule  : 

"  2.  The  common  English  version  must'  be 
made  the  basis  of  revision ;  and  all  unnecessary 
interference  with  the  established  phraseology 
shall  be  avoided;  and  only  such  alterations  shall 
be  made  as  the  exact  meaning  of  the  inspired 
text  and  the  existing  state  of  the  language  may 
require." 

I  think  it  will  appear  that  the  translator  of  the 
two  chapters  of  Matthew  especially  has  not  kept 
this   rule.      He   discards    the   old   and    solemn 


IMMERSIOXISTS    AGAINST    THE    BIBLE.     235 

style  of  tlie  common  version,  by  writing  appcarsj 
instead  of  appearefh.  In  this  lie  not  only  vio- 
lates the  above  rule,  and  all  good  taste  and  judg- 
ment, but  he  disagrees  with  the  learned  trandator 
of  Peter,  Jude,  John's  epistles,  and  the  Revela- 
tion. He  uniformly  uses  the  termination  th,  as 
loveth,  knoweth,  hath,  op)p)eareth. 

This  translator  also  discards  unto,  and  seeks  to 
impart  a  modern  air  to  his  work  by  substituting 
to  in  its  stead.  I  quote  a  part  of  what  he  says 
to  justify  this  literary  vandalism.  ''  Tlie  pre- 
position ^  unto,^  as  found  in  the  common  version, 
is  not  used  by  good  speakers  and  writers  of  the 
present  day.  Noah  Webster  says  it  is  ^  of  no 
use  in  language  :  it  is  found  in  writers  of  former 
times,  but  is  entirely  obsolete.'  In  a  thorough 
revision,  therefore,  this  word,  and  all  others  that 
are  in  the  same  condition,  must  be  rejected,  un- 
less the  Book  of  God  is  to  be  kept  throughout 
all  ages  as  the  repository  of  obsolete  words  and 
antiquated  forms,  and  made  to  the  common  mind 
a  dead  letter,  etc." 

I  refer  as  specimens  of  this  change  to  3Iat- 


236     IMMERSIONISTS    AGAINST    THE    BIBLE. 

tliew  i.  20,  etc.  But  the  author  of  the  re- 
vision of  the  epistles  of  Peter,  John,  Jude,  and 
the  Revelation,  has  retained  ^' unto,^'  and  says  in 
reference  to  it,  "  It  would  have  been  easy  to  im- 
part a  much  more  modern  air  to  the  whole  by 
such  expedients;  for  example,  as  exchanging 
unto  for  to,  etc.  Eut  it  is  scarcely  worth  while 
to  attempt  an  explanation  of  the  reasons  why  the 
translator  has  refrained  from  doing  this." 

Now  this  revision  will  certainly  be  beautifully 
harmonious  in  its  style  !  one  portion  retaining  the 
^^unto,'^  and  another  rejecting  it !  And  in  what 
kind  of  a  position  do  the  x\merican  Bible  Union 
stand?  They  have  endorsed  both  these  speci- 
mens, and  sent  them  out.  The  translator  of  the 
specimen  from  Matthew  says  that  "  a  thorough 
revision"  requires  the  rejection  of  ^^  iinto,^^  and 
thus  condemns  the  translator  of  Peter,  John,  etc., 
who  does  not  reject  "  untoj'^  and  thinks  the 
reasons  for  not  so  doing  are  so  clear  that  it  is 
not  necessary  to  name  them.  How  will  this 
thing  be  adjusted?  The  reader  will  recollect 
that  the  Board  of  Managers,  through  their  Com- 


IMMERSIONISTS    AGAINST    THE   BIBLE.     237 

mittee  on  Revision,  have  original  jurisdiction  of 
the  whole  matter,  and  of  course  they  will  de- 
termine it  according  to  their  own  taste. 

According  to  the  principle  adopted  in  rejecting 
th  or  etli,  and  unto,  they  should  discard  also 
tJiou,  tliine,  thy,  and  thee.  And,  indeed,  the 
translator  of  Matthew  says:  '^In  a  thorough 
....  this  word,  \_^' unto,''~\  and  all  others  that 
are  in  the  same  condition,  must  be  rejected." 
Well,  tliou,  thine,  etc.,  are  in  the  same  condition, 
and,  therefore,  they  ought  to  be  rejected  also; 
and  then  we  should  have :  "  Come  to  me,  all  you 
that  labor,  and  you  shall  find  rest  to  your  souls. 
Every  one  that  LOVES,  is  born  of  God.  Every 
one  that  asks,  receives;  and  he  that  seeks, 
finds;  whosoever  has,  to  him  shall  be  given." 
And  when  we  pray  we  must  say,  according  to 
modernizing  doctrine,  ^^  Our  Father,  who  are  in 
heaven,  hallowed  be  your  name  :  your  kingdom 
come,  YOUR  will  be  done  .  ...  for  yours  is  the 
kingdom,"  etc. 

Secretly  is  put  iov privily,  Matthew  i.  19.  The 
common  version  reads:  ''Was  minded  to  put  her 


238     IMMERSIONISTS    AGAINST    THE    BIBLE. 

away  privily."     The  new  version  :  ^'  Resolved  to 
divorce  her  secretly." 

In  a  note  the  translator  says  :  "  The  common 
version  does  not  correspond  with  the  original. 
The  G-reek  for  ^privately'  occurs  elsewhere,  but 
not  here.  The  exact  meaning  of  this  adverb  is 
'  secretly.' 

But  let  any  man  look  at  Webster's  Dictionary, 
and  see  if  there  is  any  ground  for  the  distinction 
between  the  words  primly  and  secretly,  let  the 
original  word  mean  what  it  may.  .The  question 
IS  as  to  which  of  these  words  ought  to  be  used  to 
express  the  meaning  of  the  original. 

Webster  defines  these  words  thus : 
Privily,    Privately;  secretly. 
Secretly,  Privately;  privily. 

Privily,  according  to  Webster,  has  as  many 
rights  as  secretly  to  have  the  place  it  occupies  in 
the  common  version.  And,  therefore,  if  it  is 
not  a  translation  of  the  original,  neither  is 
secretly. 

In  Matthew  ii.  16,  '^  angry"  is  put  in  the  place 
of  "wroth." 


IMMERSIONISTS    AGAINST    THE   BIBLE.     289 

In  his  note  the  translator  says  :  ^'  The  adjec- 
tive 'wroth'  is  falling  into  disuse  among  good 
speakers  and  writers  of  the  English  language, 
and  is  not,  therefore,  the  best  term  for  a  correct 
translation/' 

But  what  does  Webster  say  ?  ''  Wroth,  very 
angry;  much  exasperated.  An  excellent  word, 
and  not  obsolete." 

I  quote  the  following  from  the  New  York  Ob- 
server, as  referring  to  a  portion  of  the  new  ver- 
sion which  I  have  not  seen : 

"  The  first  time  that  the  new  version  of  the 
Bible  has  been  brought  into  the  pulpit  to  use, 
was  at  the  funeral-services  of  the  late  Rev. 
Dr.  Cone.  As  he  was  one  of  its  fathers,  it  was 
meet  that  his  obsequies  should  be  signalized  by 
the  inauguration  of  his  favorite  work.  The 
Eev.  Dr.  McClay  read  selections  from  the  book 
of  Job,  according  to  the  new  version,  in  the 
midst  of  which  occurred  the  following  passage : 
'And  Satan  went  out  from  the  presence  of  Jeho- 
vah, and  smote  Job  with  grievous  ulcers,  from 
the  sole  of  his  fo'4  to  his  orown.     And  ho  took 


240     IMMERSIONISTS    AGAINST    THE    BIBLE. 

a  potsherd  to  scrape  himself  therewith,  as  he  sat 
amoDg  the  ashes.  Then  said  his  wife  to  him, 
Dost  thou  still  hold  fast  thy  integrity?  Bless 
God  and  die  !  But  Job  said  to  her,  Thou  speak- 
est  as  one  of  the  foolish  women  speaks.  The 
good  shall  we  receive  from  God,  and  shall  we  not 
receive  the  evil  V 

"  If  these  astute  and  professedly  learned  critics 
have  found  any  sufficient  reason  for  substituting 
'  grievous  ulcers'  for  '  sore  boils,'  we  will  not  quar- 
rel with  them  for  the  liberty  they  have  taken. 
Sore  boils  are  grievous  ulcers,  if  not  vice  versa, 
and  we  are  always  glad  to  let  them  pass.  The 
least  said  the  better  about  boils.  But  not  so  the 
new  phase  they  give  to  the  language  and  senti- 
ment of  Job's  wife. 

^'  Our  translation  reads  :  ^  Then  said  his  wife 
unto  him,  Dost  thou  still  retain  thine  integrity  ? 
Curse  God  and  die.'  The  new  translators  ren- 
der it,  '  Bless  God  and  die.'  Is  there  any  thing 
to  favor  this  change  ?  We  are  aware  that  modern 
critics  (as  Dr.  Mason  Goode)  have  given  it : 
^Dost  thou  still  retain  thine  integrity,  hlcssing 


IMMERSIONISTS   AGAINST    THE    BIBLE.     2-41 

God  and  dying  f  And  this  reading  preserves 
the  wife's  idea,  for  she  complains  of  Job  for  still 
trusting  in  God  even  in  his  extremity.  And 
then  we  see  the  force  of  his  reply :  '  Thou 
speakest  as  one  of  the  foolish  women  speaketh. 
AVhat !  shall  we  receive  good  at  the  hand  of  God, 
and  shall  we  not  receive  evil  V 

''  But  if  we  make  Job's  wife  to  advise  her  hus- 
band to  BLESS  God  and  die,  as  there  was  every 
reason  to  suppose  he  was  about  to  die,  his  reply 
to  her  is  inhuman  and  wicked ;  and  it  could  not 
be  affirmed  of  him,  as  it  is  affirmed,  '■  In  all  this 
did  not  Job  sin  with  his  lips.' 

"  '  The  response  of  Job,'  says  Barnes,  '  shows 
that  he  understood  her  as  exciting  him  to  reject, 
renounce,  or  curse  God.  The  sense  is,  that  she 
regarded  him  as  unworthy  of  confidence.' 

"  It  requires  no  great  knowledge  of  the  ancient 
Scriptures  to  expose  the  glaring  absurdity  and 
positive  wrong  of  this  Baptist  version's  alteration 
of  God's  holy  word. 

''We  know  that  the  word  rendered  curse  may 
also  be  translated  hlcss,  as  its  more  precise  mean- 
21 


Z4:Z     IMMERSIONISTS   AGAINST   THE   BIBLE. 

iDg  is  to  invoke,  ^.  e.,  either  good  or  evil,  to  be 
determined  by  the  context.  The  same  word  in 
the  Hebrew  is  used  in  1  Kings  xxi.  10-13,  where 
the  sons  of  Belial  are  hardly  to  be  suspected  of 
charging  Naboth  with  blessing  God  and  the  king. 
In  the  case  of  Job  and  his  wife,  the  whole  con- 
versation proceeds  on  the  presumption  that  she 
exhorts  the  patient  and  submissive  patriarch  to 
curse  God,  and  not  bless  him,  as  he  had  done 
(chapter  i.  21)  with  all  the  fervor  of  his  soul,  in 
words  that  are  even  to  this  day  the  language  only 
of  a  heart  perfectly  resigned  to  God's  will.  Such, 
too,  has  been  the  uniform  sentiment  of  the 
Church  in  all  ages  and  climes.  Job's  wife  has 
been  remembered  for  her  wicked  assault  upon 
her  husband  in  this  calamit}^,  as  truly  as  Lot's 
wife  for  looking  back  when  she  and  her  husband 
were  fleeing  from  Sodom.  We  have  called  atten- 
tion to  this  obvious  alteration  of  the  sacred  text, 
to  expose  not  only  the  incompetency,  but  the 
recklessness  of  these  new  version  tinkers. 

^'If  they  will  thus  mar  the  beauty  and  destroy 
the  meaning  of  God's  word  in  portions  of  the 


IMMERSIONISTS    AGAINST   THE    BIBLE.      243 

Holy  Scriptures  where  there  is  no  difference  of 
opinion  among  Christians,  what  will  they  not 
do  when  the  powerful  motive  of  sectarian  preju- 
dice urges  them  to  tamper  with  the  sacred  text  ? 

"  It  is  evident  that  they  have  no  claim  whatever 
to  consideration  on  the  score  of  learning  or  ability  ; 
and  we  predict  that  their  new  Bible  will  react 
upon  the  cause  they  are  hoping  to  serve  by 
getting  it  up.'' 

I  might  add  many  authorities  to  justify  the 
common  version  of  Job  ii.  9,  such  as  Orton, 
Henry,  Scott,  etc.  But  I  will  content  my- 
self with  giving  a  quotation  from  the  late  Dr. 
John  Kitto,  of  England,  one  of  the  most  pro- 
foundly learned  biblical  critics  and  scholars  of 
this  or  any  other  age.  I  am  more  inclined 
to  give  his  authority,  as  the  advocates  of  the 
new  version  movement  put  so  much  stress  upon 
the  progress  of  biblical  criticism  since  our  com- 
mon version  was  made,  as  a  reason  for  a  new  one. 
Well,  Dr.  Kitto  is  as  modern  a  critic  as  can  be 
desired,  and  one  thoroughly  versed  in  biblical 
learnino;.     , 


244     IMMERSIONISTS    AGAINST    THE    BIBLE. 

I  quote  from  his  "  Daily  Bible  Illustrations" 
of  the  Book  of  Job,  p.  93  : 

"  Therefore,  when  she  saw  that  her  husband's 
faith  was  not  shaken  even  by  this  sore  distress, 
she  cried,  '  Dost  thou  still  retain  thine  integrity  ? 
Curse  Grod  and  die/  Surely  words  so  dreadful 
never  before  nor  since  came  from  a  woman's 
lips." 

Again  he  says  :  "  Job's  answer  to  this  sugges- 
tion— in  which  we  fail  not  to  trace  Satan's  hand — 
is  worthy  of  his  faith  and  patience :  '  Thou 
speakest  as  one  of  the  foolish  women  speaketh. 
What !  shall  we  receive  good  at  the  hand  of  the 
Lord,  and  not  evil  ?'  " 

Again,  on  p.  95,  after  giving  various  opin- 
ions in  regard  to  the  import  of  the  words  of 
Job's  wife  under  consideration,  he  refers  to  the 
view  of  their  meaning  adopted  by  the  translator 
of  the  Book  of  Job  for  the  American  Bible 
Union,  as  follows :  "  There  is,  however,  another 
explanation,  which,  acknowledging  the  force  of 
this  consideration,  gives  a  bad  sense  to  the  advice 
of  Job's  wife,  while  retaining  the  seysc  of  bless- 


IMMERSIONISTS   AGAINST    THE    BIBLE.     245 

ing  instead  of  cursing  God.  This  is  accomplislied 
by  making  her  words  ironical,  as  if  she  had  said, 
'Ay,  do  go  on  still,  relying  upon  thine  integ- 
rity, and  blessing  God,  and  yet  dying;  for  he 
will  not  save  thee.'  But  surely  of  all  things 
irony  would  be  most  misplaced  here.  Consider 
that  she  herself  was  a  most  afflicted  woman,  and 
that  the  wickedness  of  rebellious  thoughts  and 
language  under  extreme  sorrow  is  far  more 
natural  than  irony. 

''  There  are  other  explanations  of  the  words, 
both  as  taken  in  the  sense  of  '  bless'  and  ^  curse ;' 
but  the  reader  has  had  a  sufficient  variety.  Upon 
the  whole,  the  interpretation  we  have  given 
seems  best  to  meet  all  the  circumstances." 


21* 


246    IMMERSIONISTS   AGAINST   THE   BIBLE. 


CHAPTER  XII. 

CONCLUSION. 

In  this  chapter  I  will  present  a  synopsis  of  the 
leading  arguments,  and  some  little  additional 
matter  upon  a  few  points. 

The  reader  will  bear  in  mind  the  real  issue  in- 
volved in  the  discussion — not  that  there  are  errors 
in  the  commonly  received  version ;  nor  that  there 
ought  to  be  a  new  version ;  but  this  is  the  ques- 
tion :  whether  there  ought  to  be  such  a  version 
as  the  American  Bible  Union  is  seeking,  i.  e.,  a 
strictly  sectarian  one — immerse  and  its  cognates 
being  substituted  for  baptize  and  its  cognates. 
This  is  the  question. 

As  the  advocates  of  the  movement  try  to  deny 
that  such  is  intended  to  be  the  character  of  their 
version,  I  have  been  constrained,  for  the  present, 
to  decline  the  discussion  of   the  main  question 


IMMERSIONISTS  AGAINST    THE    BIBLE.     247 

upon  its  merits,  and  to  proceed  to  prove  that  the 
design,  and  the  main  design,  is  the  substitution 
of  immerse  for  baptize. 

I.  This  I  have  satisfactorily  done — 1.  From  the 
history  of  the  movement  in  India,  in  this  country, 
and  in  Great  Britain.  We  have  seen  that  Dr. 
Judson  and  four  others  consulted  Professor 
Stuart  as  to  whether  they  should  transfer  haptizo, 
or  translate  it  by  words  signifying  immerse.  And 
notwithstanding  Professor  Stuart  advised  them  to 
transfer,  as  had  been  done  in  the  Latin,  French, 
and  English,  yet  Dr.  Judson  proceeded  to  make 
his  Burmese  version  upon  immersionist  principles. 

In  the  meantime,  other  Baptist  missionaries, 
Pearce-  and  Yates,  were  making  the  same  kind 
of  a  version  into  the  Bengalee  tongue;  and  learn- 
ing that  this  was  the  character  of  it,  the  Calcutta 
Bible  Society  refused  any  longer  to  patronize  it. 
The  British  and  Foreign  Bible  Society  had  as- 
sumed the  same  ground  in  reference  to  such  ver- 
sions. Not  being  able  to  secure  aid  from  any 
other  society,  and  learning  that  the  American  Bible 
Society  were  aiding  Dr.  Judson's  version,  which 


2-48    IMMERSIONISTS    AGAINST    THE    BIBLE. 

they  knew  to  be  of  the  same  character  with  their 
own,  they  wrote  to  the  Society  requesting  aid. 
The  Society  learning  in  this  way,  for  the  first 
time,  the  character  of  Judson's  version,  net  only 
refused  to  grant  aid  to  Pearce  and  Yates,  but 
withdrew  their  support  from  Judson's. 

They  were  constrained  to  do  this  in  accordance 
with  the  very  principles  upon  which  the  Society 
was  originall}'-  organized.  And  I  have  most  satis- 
factorily shown,  from  the  best  authority,  that 
there  is  no  just  ground  of  complaint  against  the 
Society. 

I  have  shown  that,  in  India,  Great  Britain, 
and  in  this  country,  the  Baptists  seceded  from 
the  Bible  societies  in  these  three  quarters  of  the 
globe,  because  those  societies  would  not  appropriate 
money,  contributed  by  all  denominations,  to  aid 
in  publishing  sectarian  versions  of  the  narrowest 
kind. 

And  why  was  the  Baptist  Bible  Society  (the 
^'American  and  Foreign")  formed?  Simply  on 
account  of  the  devotion  of  the  Baptists  to  im- 
mersion.    Why  was  the  British  Translation  So- 


IMMERSIONISTS    AGAINST    THE   BIBLE.     249 

ciety  organized  under  the  auspices  of  the  Ame- 
rican and  Foreign  Bible  Society,  through  their 
agent,  Dr.  McClay?  Why,  in  order  to  secure 
immersionist  versions  of  the  Scriptures,  as  is 
demonstrated  by  one  article  of  their  constitution, 
which  requires  that,  in  all  translations  they  will 
patronize,  the  words  relating  to  the  ordinance 
of  baptism  must  be  translated  by  words  signify- 
ing immerse. 

And  finally,  why,  in  1850,  did  Dr.  Cone  and 
others  secede  from  the  American  and  Foreign 
Bible  Society,  and  form  the  American  Bible 
Union  ?  Why,  simply  and  exclusively  because 
the  American  and  Foreign  Bible  Society  decided, 
by  an  overwhelming  majority,  to  recede  from  the 
purpose  they  at  one  time  entertained,  of  carrying 
out  the  same  principle  in  reference  to  the  Eng- 
lish Scriptures  which  they  had  been  from  the 
beginning  carrying  out  in  reference  to  all  their 
translations  into  foreign  tongues,  and  which  they 
are  still  maintaining :  that  is,  to  have  an  English 
translation  of  the  Holy  Scriptures  on  imme^'sion- 
ist  principles.     To  secure  such  a  version  is  the 


250     IMMERSIONISTS   AGAINST    THE   BIBLE. 

leading  and  controlling  purpose  of  the  American 
Bible  Union.  This  is  the  thing  which  distin- 
guishes this  institution  from  the  American  and 
Foreign  Bible  Society. 

2.  I  have  adduced  quotations  from  the  reports 
of  the  American  and  Foreign  Bible  Society,  the 
Bible  Translation  Society  of  Great  Britain,  and 
of  the  American  Bible  Union,  and  also  from  the 
speeches  and  addresses  and  other  publications  of 
the  leading  advocates  of  the  new  version  move- 
ment, in  this  country,  Asia  and  Europe,  in  which 
there  is  sore  complaint  against  the  Bible  societies 
of  Europe,  Asia,  and  America,  for  not  giving  the 
heathen  immerse  as  the  translation  of  ha^tizo,  in 
the  versions  into  foreign  languages,  and  in  the 
English  language — that  thus  the  heathen  are 
'Meft  to  perish  in  their  ignorance  and  idolatry," 
without  having  a  knowledge  of  baptism — that  in 
the  common  version  in  English  the  ordinance 
^^is  covered  up  and  hid"  from  the  mass  of  the 
people  by  ''the  Popish  artifice  of  trans- 
fer"— that  '■^  it  is  wrapped  up  in  ohscurifj/," 
and  can  only  be  known  by  "the  learned" — that 


IMMERSIONISTS    AGAINST    THE    BIBLE.     251 

the  great  principle  "  to  vindicate  '^  which  the 
American  and  Foreign  Bible  Society  was  organ- 
ized is,  that  in  translations  into  all  languages, 
"  hajptizo  and  its  cor/nates  should  he  rendered  hi/ 
words  signifying  immerse,  immersion,^ ^  etc. ;  and 
that  this  Society  receding  from  the  great  purpose 
of  its  original  organization,  as  far  as  the  English 
Scriptures  are  concerned,  the  American  Bible 
Union  assumes  its  place,  and  proposes  to  accom- 
plish this  ^' great  work" — that  the  aim  of  the 
Union  is  to  have  ^'immerse  -printed — printed  in 
THE  Bible." 

I  have  quoted  from  the  speeches  of  several  dis- 
tinguished advocates  of  the  movement,  in  which 
the  admission  is  distinctly  and  unequivocally 
made,  that  the  English  word  haptize  is  a  word 
of  generic  import,  having  lost  what  they  contend 
was  its  specific  import,  to  immerse,  which  they 
say  it  had  in  the  days  of  Elizabeth,  and  when 
our  translation  was  made ;  and  they  propose,  as 
baptize  has  become  a  lying  old  sinner,  to  turn 
it  out  of  the  Bible,  and  out  of  the  Church,  and 
bring  in  immerse  into  its  place. 


252     IMMERSIONISTS    AGAINST    THE   BIBLE. 

3.  Having  tlius  adduced  in  part  wliat  the 
leaders  in  this  enterprise  have  said,  as  to  the 
main  design,  I  have  proceeded  to  show  what 
they  have  actually  done,  as  settling  the  question 
beyond  the  possibility  of  cavil. 

I  have  quoted  from  the  edition  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament published  by  the  American  and  Foreign 
Bible  Society,  with  the  meaning  of  haptize  and 
haj)tism  given  on  '^a  fly-leaf/'  in  a  glossary,  as 
immerse  and  immersion. 

I  have  also  quoted  from  the  edition  of  Cone 
and  WyckoiF,  with  immerse,  immersion,  and  their 
cognates,  incorporated  into  the  text  in  the  place 
of  baptize,  haptism,  etc. 

These  editions  were  published  by  the  American 
and  Foreign  Bible  Society  long  before  they  gave 
up  their  purpose  of  having  an  immersionist  ver- 
sion of  the  English  Scriptures,  and  they  were 
sent  out  among  the  Baptists  in  order  to  prepare 
them  for  that  which  was  to  follow  in  due  course. 

I  have  presented  a  specimen  of  the  translation 
into  the  Siamese  tongue,  in  which  haptizo,  etc., 
are  translated  by  words  signifying  immerse,  immer- 


IMMERSIONISTS    AGAINST    THE    BIBLE.      253 

sio7i,  etc.  And  the  editor  of  the  Bible  Union  Ke- 
porter  approves  of  this  translation,  as  in  accordance 
with  the  great  principle  governing  the  movement. 
I  have  referred  to  the  Spanish  and  Italian  ver- 
sions. I  will  here  give  a  specimen  from  the 
former,  as  published  in  the  Bible  Union  Reporter 
for  October,  1853.  Here  it  is  in  the  Spanish 
language : 

^^  Mateo,  cap.  hi. 

'•11.  Yo,  si,  sumerjo  en  agua  en  [profesion  de] 
arrepentimiento ;  pero  el  que  viene  en  pos  de 
mi,  mas  fuerte  es  que  yo,  cujo  calzado  no  soi 
digno  de  Ileverale :  el  os  sumergira,  en  Espiritu 
Santo,  i  en  fuego.^^ 

Now,  here,  as  the  reader  will  observe,  the  word 
^^  sumerjo, ''  in  Spanish,  is  given  as  the  rendering 
of  haptizo.  And  this  word,  indicating  by  its 
very  form  its  origin  from  the  Latin,  means  nothing 
but  immerse  or  plunge.  I  repeat  again,  we  have 
in  these  translations  what  the  Union  have  actually 
done,  as  demonstrating  what  kind  of  a  version  we 
are  to  expect  in  English. 

It  is  true,  as  I  have  shown,  they  in  so  many 
22    - 


254    IMMERSIONISTS    AGAINST    THE    BIBLE. 

words  deny  that  the  design  is  to  substitute  im- 
merse for  haptize^  and  adduce  the  rules  as  merely 
requiring  that  the  original  be  ^^ faithfully  trans- 
lated." But  we  know  very  well  what  they  mean 
by  "faithful  translations.''  They  are  such  as^  at 
least,  have  immerse  in  the  place  of  baptize,  and 
this  can  be  secured  without  violating  the  rules, 
as  I  have  shown.  And  that  it  can  be  done  in 
accordance  with  the  rules  in  the  estimation  of  the 
Union  itself,  is  positively  demonstrated  by  the 
fact  that  they  have  had  such  versions  made,  and 
have  approved  of  them  as  in  accordance  with  the 
great  principle  governing  the  Union  in  the  work 
of  translation;  and  they  have  published  them 
and  sent  them  abroad  as  ^^  specimens.'' 

II.  I  have  next  noticed  some  of  the  dishonor- 
able, and,  as  I  think,  unchristian,  expedients 
which  are  adopted  to  hoodwink  the  public  as  to 
the  main  design  of  the  movement.  I  will  here 
recur  to  the  principal  of  these  expedients,  be- 
fore noticed,  as  showing  up  the  kind  of  tac- 
tics adopted  to  carry  forward  what  its  advocates 
style  "  the  greatest  enterprise  of  the  age.'' 


IMMERSIONISTS    AGAINST    THE    BIBLE.     25o 

1.  I  have  noticed  the  effort  to  make  a  false 
impression  upon  the  public  mind  by  representing 
that  all  the  denominations  of  Protestant  Chris- 
tians are  engaged  in  it — both  in  Europe  and 
America.  And  I  see  in  a  late  number  of  the 
^^  Western  Recorder/^  published  at  Louisville, 
Ky.,  that  they  are  claiming  the  Roman  Catholics 
as  in  favor  of  it.  They  might  just  as  well  go  on 
and  say  that  the  whole  world,  ecclesiastical, 
political,  and  literary,  are  in  favor  of  it — Jews, 
Mohammedans,  and  Heathens.  Having  loosed 
their  moorings  from  the  haven  of  honesty  and 
candor,  they  might  as  well  keep  out  at  sea, 
and  say  any  thing  at  all  that  will  serve  their 
purpose. 

I  have  shown  that  the  Pedobaptists  engaged 
in  this  enterprise,  either  as  members  of  the 
Union  or  as  translators,  are  not  in  any  sense  the 
representatives  of  the  Churches  to  which  they  be- 
long. If  they  are,  where  and  when  were  they 
appointed  as  such,  and  where  is  the  record  of  it  ? 
And  if  the  Pedobaptist  Churches  are  represented, 
why  do  none  of  them  appear  as  officers  of  the 


256    IMMERSION ISTS    AGAINST    THE    BIBLE. 

Union  ?  Why  do  not  some  of  them  appear  as  its 
advocates  at  their  anniversaries  ?  Why  do  no 
Pedobaptist  journals  advocate  the  great  principle 
of  the  Union  ?  Why  are  none  of  the  Pedobap- 
tists  employed  as  agents  to  travel  through  the 
country  and  advocate  revision  ?  Let  these  ques- 
tions be  answered  before  this  statement  is  made 
any  more. 

As  to  the  Pedobaptists  engaged  as  translators, 
(and  they  say  a  majority  of  their  translators  are 
of  this  clasSj)  they  admit  in  their  own  publica- 
tions that  they  are  employed  ^^  under  written  con- 
tract." They  are  only  doing  a  literary  job  for 
the  Union.  They  have  sold  themselves  to  the 
Bible  Union  for  the  time,  for  ^^  a  7ness  of  pottage," 
which,  I  have  no  doubt,  the  poor  fellows  needed 
very  much. 

But  it  matters  not  who  are  the  translators. 
Their  work  has  to  be  scanned  by  the  committee 
on  versions  of  the  Bible  Union  before  it  can  see 
the  light.  This  committee,  and  another,  called 
an  "  ultimate  committee"  must  be  pleased  with 
its  merits  in  all  respects.     And  of  whom  are  these 


IMMERSIONISTS    AGAINST   THE   BIBLE.     257 

committees  composed  ?  Why,  immersionists,  and 
none  but  immersionists. 

2.  Another  feature  in  the  tactics  of  this 
^^ greatest  enterprise,'^  is  the  publication  of  cer- 
tain portions  of  the  new  version,  which  do  not 
contain  the  real  issue ;  and  they  have  sent  these 
abroad  as  ^'specimens''  of  the  forthcoming  com- 
pleted version.  The  portions,  as  the  reader  will 
recollect  I  have  stated,  do  not  contain  bap>tizo, 
nor  any  of  its  derivatives,  in  the  original;  and, 
therefore,  the  translators  could  not  come  out  with 
the  main  design  in  these  portions.  Why  did 
they  not,  L  have  inquired,  publish  the  third 
chapter  of  Matthew  and  the  second  epistle  of 
Peter  ?  Why,  simply,  because  this  would  have 
opened  the  eyes  of  the  public  to  the  main  design, 
which  they  aim  to  avoid.  They  have,  by  this 
unfair  course,  had  these  '^ sp)ecimens"  piiffed,  and 
have  published  the  commendations  of  a  large  num- 
ber of  learned  men  in  England  and  America  as 
favorable  to  the  enterprise  as  such, 

I  will  here,  however,  present  one  '^ specimen'' 
22* 


258    IMMERSIONISTS    AGAINST    THE    BIBLE. 

of  the  manner^  doubtless^  in  wliicli  many,  if  not 
all,  of  these  c'ommendations  have  been  secured. 

I  quote  from  the  New  York  Observer  for 
January  3,  1856,  as  follows:  ''The  use  which 
has  been  made  of  the  names  of  gentlemen  iu 
other  Christian  denominations,  to  give  currency 
to  the  new  version,  is,  in  our  view,  worthy  of 
specific  censure,  inasmuch  as  it  lacks  that  Chris- 
tian fairness  and  candor  which  should  peculiarly 
characterize  the  movement  of  all  religious  asso- 
ciations. As  an  example  of  the  use  which  has 
been  made  of  distinguished  names,  we  copy  the 
following  correspondence  between  the  Rev.  E.  B. 
Raffensperger  and  Dr.  J.  A.  Alexander: 

"Bellefontaine,  0.,  Nov.  27,  1855. 
"Dear  Sir  : — To-day  I  dined  with  one  of  the 
families  of  my  Church,  in  company  with  a  cer- 
tain Baptist  minister,  who  is  in  the  employ  of  the 
'Bible  Union.'  He  stated,  in  the  presence  of 
the  company,  that  you  had  given  your  ^  unquali- 
Jied  api^roval  of  the  operations  of  that  Society.' 
In  reply  to  my  question,  he  also  stated  that  he 


IMMERSIONISTS    AGAINST    THE   BIBLE.     259 

is  in  the  habit  of  using  the  influence  of  your 
name  from  the  pulpit  on  the  Sabbath^  while  urg- 
ing the  claims  of  the  'Bible  Union/  Will  you 
be  kind  enough  to  state  whether  this  man  has 
really  any  authority  for  making  such  use  of  the 
venerated  name  of  one  of  my  Princeton  in- 
structors ? 

"Yours,  respectfully, 

"E.  B.  Raffensperger. 
"Rev.  J.  A.  Alexander,  B.DJ' 

"Princeton,  N.  J.,  Dec.  5,  1855. 
"  My  dear  Sir  : — I  have  again  and  again 
contradicted  the  absurd  and  false  report  that  I 
approve  of  the  new  Baptist  Bible.  It  has  grown 
out  of  a  friendly  expression  of  opinion  as  to  the 
literary  merit  of  that  part  of  the  revision  executed 
by  a  minister  of  our  own  Church,  the  Rev.  John 
Lillie,  of  New  York.  That  opinion  has  no  more 
to  do  with  the  question  of  a  new  version  to  re- 
place the  common  one,  than  my  own  translation 
of  Isaiah  and  the  Psalms,  which  I  would  not,  if 
I  could,  put  into  the  place  of  the  authorized  ver- 


260     IMMERSIONISTS    AGAINST    THE   BIBLE. 

sion.  While  I  look  upon  new  translations  as  an 
important  part  of  interpretation,  I  think  the 
scheme  of  a  new  Bible  to  replace  the  old  one  as 
inexpedient  and  impracticable  in  itself,  as  the 
use  of  my  name  by  its  advocates,  after  my 
repeated  public  contradiction,  is  dishonest  and 
uncliristian.  For  confirmation  of  these  state- 
ments, I  refer  to  the  Rev.  John  Lillie,  at  the 
office  of  the  '  Bible  Union'  itself. 

"  Yours,  very  truly, 

"  J.  A.  Alexander, 
"Rev.  E.  B.  Baffensperger.'' 

And  in  the  Observer  of  the  17th  of  the  same 
month  there  is  published  the  following  from  the 
Bev.  Mr.  Lillie,  to  whom  Dr.  Alexander  refers 
in  the  above  letter. 

"American  Bible  Union  Rooms,  .Jan.  8,  1856, 
'^  Messrs.  Editors  : — In  your  last  number  I 
observed  a  letter  from  the  Rev.  Dr.  J.  A.  Alex- 
ander, of  Princeton,  in  which,  after  briefly  ex- 
plaining what  it  was  that  has  led  some,  it  would 
appear,  to  represent  him  as  favorable  to  an  enter- 


IMMERSIONISTS    AGAINST   THE   BIBLE.     261 

prise  of  which  he  disapproves,  to  wit,  that  of  the 
American  Bible  Union,  he  refers  his  correspond- 
ent for  fuller  inforraation  to  myself.  Let  this  be 
my  apology  for  troubling  you  with  the  following 
statement. 

"  Some  three  years  ago  I  printed  a  work  of 
mine  on  the  Second  Epistle  of  Peter,  and  the 
Epistles  of  John  and  Jude.  And  it  was  in  rela- 
tion to  this  that  I  received  from  Dr.  Alexander, 
toward  the  close  of  1852,  a  written  expression 
of  his  opinion.  In  the  summer  of  1854,  the 
same  work  was  reprinted,  in  greatly  enlarged 
form,  and  with  the  addition  of  the  Book  of 
Revelation,  the  whole  making  a  volume  of  five 
times  the  size  of  its  predecessor.  When,  there- 
fore, I  returned  from  Europe  in  the  fall  of  the 
year  last  mentioned,  and,  on  the  day  of  my 
landing,  found  in  the  printed  abstract  of  the 
Annual  Report,  prepared  for  the  annual  meeting 
of  the  Society  then  in  session,  a  few  commenda- 
tory words  extracted  from  that  private  letter,  and 
which  now  also  might  be  taken  as  an  endorse- 
ment of  the  latter  publication,  I  was,  indeed,  not 
a  little  chagrined.    It  was  nearly  two  years  since  L 


262     IMMERSIONISTS    AGAINST    TPIE   BIBLE. 

had  consented  that  a  communication,  in  which  the 
brethren  of  the  Bible  Union  naturally  felt  them- 
selves interested,  should  be  copied  at  their  rooms, 
but  with  an  express  understanding,  as  I  did 
most  assuredly  suppose,  that  nothing  of  it  what- 
ever should  be  published  without  the  writer's 
consent  first  asked  and  obtained  :  though  it  must 
be  confessed,  on  the  other  hand,  that,  in  my  in- 
quiries on  the  subject,  the  Secretary  disclaims  all 
recollection  of  any  such  restriction.  However,  I 
wrote  immediately  to  Dr.  Alexander,  expressing 
my  deep  regret  at  what  had  occurred,  and  offer- 
ing to  make  whatever  public  amends  was  still  in 
my  power.  In  very  kind  terms  he  relieved  me 
of  that  necessity ;  and  the  Secretary  himself  then 
proposed,  as  I  also  informed  Dr.  Alexander,  that 
in  the  Annual  Report,  which  had  not  yet 
appeared,  the  reference  of  the  extract  to  the  first 
specimen  of  revision  should  be  distinctly  defined, 
or,  if  Dr.  Alexander  preferred,  the  extract  should 
be  suppressed  altogether.  The  former  alterna- 
tive was  the  one  finally  adopted. 
"  I  am,  etc., 

"John  Lillie." 


IMMERSIONISTS    AGAINST    THE    BIBLE.     263 

Now,  I  would  ask,  in  view  of  the  light  afforded 
in  the  above  correspondence  as  to  the  manner 
in  which  Dr.  Alexander's  commendation  of  the 
new  version  was  secured,  what  confidence  can  be 
reposed  in  the  legitimacy  of  any  of  the  numer- 
ous commendations  they  have  published,  and 
which  are  read  and  commented  on  by  the  agents 
of  the  Union  throughout  the  length  and  breadth 
of  the  land,  in  order,  if  possible,  to  swindle  the 
people  out  of  their  money  ? 

Who  knows  but  that  the  whole  of  them  have 
been  secured  in  the  same  fraudulent  and  dis- 
honest way  ? 

3.  I  have  referred  to  the  manner  in  which  King 
James  and  the  translators  of  the  common  version, 
and  the  version  itself,  have  been  abused  by  the 
friends  of  this  movement,  as  a  means  of  making 
way  for  their  own  one-sided,  sectarian  production. 
But  I  have  proved  from  the  highest  authority, 
and  Baptist  authority  at  that,  1.  That  James  was 
not  legally  acknowledged  as  king  of  England  at 
the  time  the  translation  was  determined  upon. 
2.  That  the  motion  for  a  new  translation  did  not 


264     IMMERSIONISTS    AGAINST    THE    BIBLE. 

originate  witli  James,  nor  the  Episcopal  party,  but 
was  made  by  Dr.  Rainolds,  a  Puritan,  or  Presby- 
terian. 3.  That  James  did  not  select  the  trans- 
lators :  he  only  approved  of  the  selection  made. 

4.  That  neither  James  nor  the  government  of 
England  ever  recognized  the  enterprise,  or  ever 
paid  one  penny  to  defray  the    expenses   of   it. 

5.  That  the  common  version  did  not  gain  the 
ascendency  over  other  versions  then  and  for 
many  years  after  published,  as  the  result  of  any 
interference  of  royal  or  governmental  authorit}^, 
but  as  the  result  of  its  own  intrinsic  merits. 

As  to  the  rules  prescribed  for  the  direction  of 
the  translators,  of  which  there  has  been  so  much 
complaint,  as  fettering  them,  I  have  shown,  1. 
That  the  rules  do  not  prohibit  translation  from 
the  original  at  all,  in  any  sense.  2.  That  the 
word  baptize  is  not  once  named  in  the  rules  as 
one  of  the  words  to  be  retained.  3.  That  the 
only  absolute  restriction  which  the  rules  lay  upon 
the  translators  is,  that  they  shall  be  faithful  to 
the  original  Hebrew  and  Greek.  4.  That  the 
translators  certainly  did  not  understand  the  rules 


IMMERSIONISTS    AGAINST    THE   BIBLE.     265 

as  prohibiting  the  translation  of  haptizo ;  for 
they  have  positively  translated  it,  at  least  in  three 
instances  :  one  in  Heb.  ix.  10;  and  twice  in  Mark 
vii.  4. 

But  I  have  proved  that  the  very  thing  which 
they  have  charged  King  James  with  doing,  with- 
out the  slightest  foundation,  the  American  Bible 
Union  have  done  themselves.  They  have  left  to 
their  translators  7io  independent  discretion  at  all. 
In  addition  to  what  I  have  adduced  from  their 
own  publications  to  demonstrate  this  astounding 
fact,  I  will  furnish  the  reader  with  an  additional 
quotation  from  the  Semi-annual  Keport  of  the 
American  Bible  Union  for  1855,  as  published  in 
the  Bible  Union  Keporter  for  June,  1855,  which 
lies  before  me.  Listen  to  what  the  Board  of 
Managers  say : 

"When  a  scholar  is  engaged  by  the  Board, 
instructions  are  introduced  into  the  contract, 
requiring  the  exact  meaning  of  the  original;  and 
he  is  requested  and  urged  to  make  the  most 
thorough  and  faithful  version  possible.  No  ex- 
pense is  spared  to  furnish  him  with  needed  books, 
23 


266    IMMERSIONISTS   AGAINST   THE   BIBLE. 

and  other  requisite  facilities.  When  his  loor/c  is 
finished,  the  manuscript  is  submitted  to  the 
Board,  and  referred  to  the  committee  07i  versions. 
This  committee  is  required  to  give  it  a  careful 
examination,  and  not  to  recommend  its  printing 
unless  its  merits  will  justify  such  an  expend/iturc. 
If  this  is  not  the  case,  another  scholar  or  other 
scholars  are  employed  on  the  same  part.  Some- 
times the  work  has  to  go  through  the  hands  of  a 
third  or  fourth  party  before  the  committee  feel 
justified  in  printing  it.  On  some  parts  we  have 
manuscripts  from  five  different  hands.  All  of 
these  are  of  more  or  less  service  in  the  prosecution 
of  the  work  ^  and  ultimately  will  greatly  aid 
the  ultimate  committee  that  must  prepare  the 
whole  book  for  the  press.'' 

Did  King  James  or  any  other  despot  ever  insti- 
tute such  a  system  of  surveillance  over  a  set  of 
translators  before  ? 

And  in  view  of  the  account  above  given  by 
the  Union  itself,  what  independent  discretion,  I 
ask  again,  do  these  notable  and  ^'■learned''  trans- 
lators enjoy  ? 


IMMERSIONISTS    AGAINST    THE   BIBLE.     267 

4.  Another  expedient  which  I  have  noticed,  is 
the  representation  that  other  denominations  have 
had  their  denominational  translations,  and  that, 
consequently,  there  should  be  no  complaint  of  the 
immersionists  for  having  one.  If  they  had 
appealed  to  the  example  of  the  Papists,  the 
Swedenborgians,  the  Universalists,  the  Unitari- 
ans, and  the  sect  of  the  Destructionists,  to 
justify  their  measure,  there  would  have  been 
some  appropriateness  in  it.  For  all  these  have 
versions,  or  rather  perversions  of  the  Holy 
Scriptures  conforming  to  their  faith  and  usages. 

But  where  is  any  sectarianism,  for  instance,  in 
Wesley's  translation  of  the  New  Testament? 
Where  is  there  any  in  Doddridge's  or  Mac- 
knight's,  unless  it  be  in  opposition  to  the  pre- 
vailing opinion  and  practice  of  their  own  sect  in 
regard  to  baptism  ?  And  again :  Did  any  of 
these  learned  men  intimate  that  his  version  was 
designed  to  supersede  the  common  version  ?  Or 
have  any  of  these  denominations  intimated  a 
desire  that  such  should  be  the  case  ?  or  has  any 
such  thing  been  attempted  ? 

Conybeare  has  been  quoted  as  favorable  to  this 


268     IMMERSIONISTS   AGAINST    THE    BIBLE. 

movement;  because  he  has  given,  in  his  late  trans- 
lation of  Paul's  epistles,  variations  from  the  com- 
mon version,  though,  perhaps,  he  never  heard  of 
the  Bible  Union.  But  we  have  quoted  the  lan- 
guage of  him  and  Mr.  Howson  speaking  of  the 
common  version  as  '^  unrivalled.'^ 

The  same  claim  is  made  in  reference  to  every 
learned  man  who  has  taken  any  exceptions  to  the 
manner  in  which  any  passage  in  the  common 
version  is  translated.  All  he  says  is  construed 
and  published  as  so  much  said  in  favor  of  this 
movement,  though  he  may  have  expressed  in  the 
most  unequivocal  manner  his  admiration  of  the 
common  version  as  a  whole.  This  remark  applies 
to  Dr.  Adam  Clarke,  and  many  others. 

Nothing  these  men  have  said  can  be  legiti- 
mately construed  in  favor  of  this  movement, 
unless  it  can  be  shown  that  they  have  expressed 
themselves  in  favor  of  the  main  design — that  is," 
the  substitution  of  immerse  for  baptize  in  the 
common  version.     Have  they  done  this  ? 

As  to  what  the  American  Bible  Society  have 
recently  done,  I  have  shown  that  they  have  made 
no  translation  at  all,  but  merely  a  '•  collation,'' 


IMMERSIONISTS   AGAINST    THE   BIBLE.      269 

fipr  the  purpose,  mainly,  of  restoring  our  copy  of 
tlie  Bible  to  the  edition  of  1611.  They  havp 
'made  some  correction  of  errors  in  orthography, 
punctuation,  capital  letters,  etc. 

And  then,  again,  we  have  asked,  even  if  the 
American  Bible  Society  have  made  a  translation, 
(and  they  have  not,)  is  there  any  change  which 
they  have  made  favorable  to  the  doctrines  or 
practice  of  any  sect,  or  any  class  of  sects  ? 

III.  I  have  brie%  examined  some  of  the 
changes  proposed  in  the  common  version,  and 
have  shown,  I  think,  very  conclusively,  that  none 
of  them  are  demanded  by  fidelity  to  the  original, 
while  many  of  them  are  an  outrage  upon  good 
taste  and  sound  biblical  criticism. 

IV.  I  have  finally  offered  a  brief  criticism  on 
the  portions  of  the  new  version  that  I  have  been 
able  to  secure,  and  have  shown  that  whatever 
may  be  the  merit  of  some  of  the  changes  they 
have  made,  they  have  violated  their  own  prin- 
ciples of  translation,  so  loudly  and  repeatedly 
announced,  and  have  done  violence  to  the  rules 
of  good  taste  and  sound  scholarship. 

23* 


270    IMMERSIONISTS   AGAINST   THE   BIBLE. 

And  I  think  tlie  reflecting  among  the  devotees 
of  this  movement  will  be  constrained,  after  a 
while,  to  feel  the  force  of  the  prophet's  language, 
if  the  '^  specimens''  already  published  indicate 
the  character  of  their  version  :  "  Hath  a  nation 
changed  their  gods,  which  are  yet  no  gods  ?  But 
my  people  have  changed  their  glory  for  that 
which  doth  not  profit  ?'' 

Many  a  good,  pious  Baptist,  (and  there  are 
such,)  if  this  new  version  should  prevail,  will 
feel  like  Mary  did  when  she  said,  "  They  have 
taken  away  my  Lord,  and  I  know  not  where 
they  have  laid  him/'  No  person  deeply  imbued 
with  piety,  not  to  say  sound  learning  or  good 
judgment,  can  ever  finally  give  up  ^^The  Old- 
fashioned  Bible''  for  any  such  a  mutilated  and 
sjpiritless  thing,  apart  from  its  narrow  sectarian 
character.  "No  man,  having  drunk  old  wine, 
straightway  desireth  new ;  for  he  saith  the  old  is 
better." 

THE     END. 


PUBLICATIONS  OF  THE  M.  E.  CHURCH.  SOUTH. 


BIBLE  READINGS  FOR  EVERY  DAY  IN  THE  YEAR. 
Specially  designed  for  Children.  6  vols.,  196  pp. 
eacli.    Price  $2.50  for  the  entire  set. 

These  readings  go  all  through  the  Bible.  The  language  is  re- 
markable for  its  beautiful  simplicity.  The  volumes  are  illustratec? 
by  a  dozen  fine  engravings.    The  set  is  a  capital  present  to  a  child. 

THE  SUNDAY-SCHOOL  TEACHER ;  or,  the  Catechetical 
Office.  By  Thomas  0.  Summers,  D.D.  18mo.,  pp.  144. 
Price  30  cts. 

This  work  discusses  the  most  interesting  questions  connected 
with  the  Catechetical  System — the  Teacher's  Qualifications,  Diffl 
culties,  and  Encouragements.  It  exhibits  the  obligations  of  pastors 
and  teachers  to  the  children  of  the  Church,  and  shows  how  the) 
may  be  discharged. 

HOME  TRUTHS.  By  the  Rev.  J.  C.  Ryle,  B.  A.  18mo. 
pp.  324.    Price  40  cts. 

This  book  is  full  of  plain,  pointed  observations,  strikingly  adapted 
to  elicit  serious  thought,  and  to  induce  holy  living. 

LONDON  IN  THE  OLDEN  TIME;  or,  Sketches  of  the 
English  Metropolis,  from  its  Origin  to  the  End  of 
the  Sixteenth  Century.    Price  30  cts. 

LONDON  IN  MODERN  TIMES;  or.  Sketches  of  the  great 
Metropolis  during  the  last  two  Centuries.  Price 
30  cts. 

These  are  life-like  "Sketches"  —  a  couple  of  sterling  volumes 
The  engravings  of  the  Crystal  Palace  and  London  Bridge  are  elegant 

FIFTY  BEAUTIFUL  BALLADS.    Price  35  cts. 

FIFTY  FINE  POEMS.    Price  85  cts. 

A  couple  of  elegant  volumes,  containing  some  of  the  cream  ol 
English  poetry.    They  are  adorned  with  numerous  embellishmentd 

CEREMONIES  OF  MODERN  JUDAISM.  By  Herman 
Baer.  With  an  Introduction  hy  Thomas  0.  Summers 
Price  40  cts. 

The  author — an  educated  Israelite,  though  now  a  Christian — u 
tamiliarly  acquainted  with  the  ceremonies  of  modern  Judaism :  ho 
has  described  them  with  accuracy.  Some  elegant  engravings  em- 
bellish the  interesting  volume. 


THE  CHRISTIAN  FATHER'S  PRESENT  TO  HIS  CHIL- 
DREN.    By  J.  A.  James.    Price  50  cts. 

This  work  is  written  in  a  graceful  style,  and  is  full  of  excellent 
suggestions,  cautions,  and  counsels.  A  few  editorial  notes  and  cor- 
rections have  been  made  wliere  the  author's  theological  views  ajv 
peared  to  be  defective,  and  inconsistent  with  the  general  strain  of 
the  volume, 

PLANTS  AND  TREES  OF  SCRIPTURE.    Price  40  cts. 

In  revising  this  work,  the  editor  has  arranged  the  subjects  in 
alphabetical  order,  and  illustrated  the  letter-press  by  a  great  many 
elegant  engravings,  executed  expressly  for  this  edition. 


GLIMPSES  OF  THE  DARK  AGES.    Price  35  cts. 

THE  WORLD  OF  WATERS.  By  Fanny  Osborne.  With 
illustrations.  Two  vols.  18mo.,  pp.  186,  224.  Price 
70  cts. 

A  couple  of  fascinating  and  instructive  volumes.  The  tales  and 
narratives  beguile,  like  sailors'  yarns,  the  voyage  over  the  world  of 
waters.  The  descriptions  and  anecdotes  blend  the  charm  of  romance 
with  the  credibility  of  truth.    The  illustrations  are  superb. 


MEMOIR  OF  JOHN  HTJSS.    Price  25  cts. 

ANCIENT  BRITISH  CHURCH.    Price  30  cts. 

FAMILY  GOVERNMENT.  By  Bishop  Andrew.  Price 
30  cts. 

BEREAVED  PARENTS  CONSOLED.  By  the  Rev.  John 
Thornton.  Carefully  revised :  with  an  Introduction 
and  Selection  of  Lyrics  for  the  Bereaved.  By  T.  0. 
Summers,  D.D.  18mo.,  pp.  144.  Price,  full  gilt,  40 
cts. ;  in  extra  binding,  75  cts. ;  gilt  backs,  30  cts.- 
24mo.,  pp.  144.    Price,  in  muslin,  25  cts. 

This  is  an  elegant  volume.  Its  contents  are  adapted  to  administer 
comfort  to  the  Jacobs  and  Kachels  who  weep  for  their  children 
because  they  are  not.  They  will  scarcely  "  refuse  to  be  comforted" 
by  th?  consolatory  topics  so  judiciously  presented  in  this  excellent 
work. 

THE  STEAM  ENGINE.    Edited  by  Thomas  0.  Summers, 
D.  D.    18mo.,  pp.  188.    Price  30  cts. 
A  capital  companion  in  a  steamboat  or  car. 


